Heard Mr.M.MD.Ibrahim Ali , learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
2.The writ petitioner is an establishment in which the third respondent herein was employed for more than two decades. The third respondent filed an application for payment of Gratuity before the Controlling Authority.
Admittedly, the petitioner herein received notice in the said applications.
The petitioner entered appearance, but, thereafter, for reasons best known failed to contest the proceedings. This led to passing of an exparte order on 09.03.2017 by the Controlling Authority. The petitioner herein thereafter filed an application for setting aside the said exparte order, but the application was filed only on 03.09.2017.
3.As per the proviso Rule 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972, an exparte order can be reviewed on a good cause, being shown within thirty days of the said order. In this case, the application for setting aside the exparte order was filed more than 5 months later.
Therefore on the very face of it, the applications filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the exparte order dated 09.03.2017, passed by the Controlling Authority is not maintainable. Since the order passed by the Controlling Authority was very much holding good, the first respondent was justified in taking recovery measures. The recovery measures taken by the first respondent are intended to comply with the statutory mandate caused on the first respondent. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition.
4.This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
2.The Controlling Authority, Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (Assistant Labour Commissioner) (Tirunelveli) Camp at Tuticorin, Tuticorin..