Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/73820/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 738 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2817 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION NO.8510 OF 2008
=====================================================
THE
MANAGER,SHRI TALAJA TALUKASAHAKARI KHARID VECHAN SANGH - Appellant(s)
Versus
KAKUBHAI
SHANTILAL BHATT Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance :
MR
SACHIN D VASAVADA for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 06/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
1. This
Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order passed in Special Civil
Application No.2817 of 2008 dated 18-2-2008, whereby the appellant’s
petition came to be dismissed. The said petition was preferred to
challenge the order passed by Controlling Authority on 12-2-2006 and
the order passed by the appellate authority on 8-8-2007 granting
benefit of gratuity to the respondent with 10% interest from
15-10-2004 on the amount of Rs.57,689/-.
2. As
rightly submitted by learned advocate Mr.Vasavada, the core question
involved in this litigation is whether the provisions of Payment of
Gratuity Act would be applicable to the appellant-Institution.
3. In
this regard a reference to the order passed by the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act under Gratuity
Application No.133 of 2005 dated 12-2-2007 is relevant(in fact this
is the order under challenge). On the question of applicability of
the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, it has been observed that
earlier in respect of a former employee Shri Labhshankar T.Badheka,
same question had arisen before the Controlling Officer in Gratuity
Application No.23 of 1997 and by order dated 14-7-1998 the appellant
was directed to pay gratuity. Said order in Gratuity Application
No.23 of 1997 was passed ex parte and, therefore, a Revision
Application bearing No.26 of 1997 was preferred, which came to be
dismissed by the then Controlling Authority. Thereafter,the appellant
did not pursue the matter further and accepted the order. Now,
therefore, the question was decided against the appellant and that
order having not been challenged before higher forum, has attained
finality. The Controlling Officer under the Payment of Gratuity Act
was, therefore, justified in turning down the point raised by the
appellant on question of applicability of the provisions of Payment
of Gratuity Act.
4. So
far as other factual aspects of the present case are concerned, there
are concurrent findings of the authorities below, which are upheld by
the learned single Judge and,therefore, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the order impugned in this appeal. The appeal,
therefore, must fail and stands dismissed.
CIVIL
APPLICATION NO.8510 OF 2008
In
the light of dismissal of appeal, the Civil Application does not
survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(A.L.Dave,J)
(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari,J)
arg
Top