(Prayer: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the Final Order dt. 25.01.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P No. 1461 of 2024in confirming the common order passed by the 1st Respondent in P.G Appeal Nos 1/2022 to 25/2022, 27/2022 to 41/2022 dt 05.11.2023 by confirming the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent/Adjudicatory authority in . P.G case Nos 3/2012 to 43/2012 dt 28.05.2022 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be Pleased to condone the delay of 145 days in representing the above I.A. Petition in W.A.Sr.No. 1855/2025 and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased days into Condone the delay of 35 days in filing the present Writ Appeal and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend Final Order dt. 25.01.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P No. 1461 of 2024 in confirming the common order passed by the 1st Respondent in P.G Appeal Nos 1/2022 to 25/2022, 27/2022 to 41/2022 dt 05.11.2023 by confirming the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent /Adjudicatory authority in P.G case Nos 3/2012 to 43/2012 dt 28.05.2022 and pass)

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:-

1. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.1461 of 2024 under orders dated 25.01.2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Writ Petitioner therein filed the present appeal.

Factual Matrix:

2(i). Respondent Nos.3, 7 to 9, 14 to 21, 26 to 28, 34 to 42, 44 to 55 and 59 are said to be the workmen / N.M.Rs. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru in P.G. Case No.5 of 2012 and batch, considered the case of the employees in the respective cases, as to payment of gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act for a period of 15 days instead of 7 days for every completed period of service and passed orders in favour of the workmen under orders dated 28.05.2022, rejecting the ground of the employer that gratuity is payable at the rate of 7 days for every completed year of service treating the workmen as seasonal workers and adopting the principal that the gratuity payable at the rate of 15 days per year will apply but not that of seasonal employment, considering that the organisation in which the workmen served is a factory but not a seasonal employment.

                  (ii). Assailing the said orders, the employer filed an appeal in terms of terms of Payment of Gratuity Act before the Appellate Authority and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru.

                  (iii). Having suffered dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the orders of the Controlling Authority / Original Authority, Writ Petition W.P.No.1461 of 2024 is filed.

                  (iv). The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ at the admission stage observing that there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondent workmen, in view of the fact that the entitlement to be decided is not substantial and would range between Rs.13,000/- to Rs.23,000/- in respect of his employee and the total value involved itself is Rs.6,67,725/- as per the orders of the Original Authority by taking note of the difficulties of all the workmen in engaging an advocate appearing before the High Court and the financial implications involved thereon, while confirming the concurrent findings of the Original Controlling Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, dated 28.05.2022 and the orders of the Appellate Authority and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, dated 05.11.2023.

                  (v). Questioning the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2024 in the Writ Petition, the present appeal is filed.

Case of the writ petitioner / employer / appellant:

3(i). Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not meant for the workmen/unofficial respondents. Some of them died during the pendency of the claim. The legal representatives are also not brought on record.

                  (ii). As per the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employees employed in seasonal establishments are entitled for gratuity is at the rate of ‘7’ days for each completed year of service. Whereas the entitlement claimed and confirmed at ‘15’ days for each completed year of service is erroneous. The workmen must have worked a minimum of 240 days per year continuously for five years for such entitlement. Therefore, the orders of Controlling Authority, Appellate Authority and in the Writ are unsustainable.

4. At the stage of admission and notice, the matter is heard.

5. Heard Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the material available on record.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the appellant:

6(i). The disposal of the Writ Petition without notice to the claimants is a violation of principles of the natural justice and principle of audi alteram partem.

                  (ii). The proceedings went against the writ petitioner on unwarranted emotional credence on the financial status of the unofficial respondents and notice should have been ordered to all the unofficial respondents.

                  (iii). Applicability of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is ignored, as per which the entitlement is at 7 days per year but not 15 days in respect of seasonal establishments.

                  (iv). To consider the entitlement of gratuity, the workmen should have worked 240 days in a year.

                  (v). The delay in entertaining the claim by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, as argued, was not considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the orders under appeal are liable to be set aside.

For the respondents:

7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are well reasoned and that there are no grounds to interfere.

8. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

                  1). Whether the orders dated 25.01.2024 in W.P.No.1461 of 2024 dismissing the Writ Petition and not interfering with the concurrent findings of the order of the Controlling Authority and Assistant Commissioner of Labour dated 28.05.2022 and the orders of Appellant Authority and Deputy Commissioner of Labour dated 05.11.2023, whereunder the Respondent Nos.3, 7 to 9, 14 to 21, 26 to 28, 34 to 42, 44 to 55 and 59 / workmen’s entitlement for gratuity at the rate of 15 days for completed years of service was upheld, are proper or require any interference, if so on what grounds?

                  2). What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

9. The learned Single Judge has addressed the points formulated by the primary authority, covering:

                  (i) belated calling of information.

                  (ii) condonation of delay.

                  (iii) death of certain workmen and

                  (iv) the impact of the judgment in W.P.No.20392 of 2005 as to permitting consideration and deciding the issue relating to the difference of gratuity as well as the entitlement of the workmen/ applicants for gratuity.

Reasoning of the learned Single Judge:

10(A). With regard to the objection as to delay, its condonation and calling for records, it was observed that the claim was originally made in the year 2005. Therefore, belated calling of records is not fatal. With regard to condonation of delay, the controlling authority has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.S. Maheswari vs. Delhi Admn & Others(AIR 1984 SC 153) and judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Rama Rao. P vs. Controlling Authority under P. G Act((1996) 2 ALD 531). There is sufficient reasoning.

                  (B). With regard to the death of certain employees, it was observed that if the rights have crystallised, the legal representatives will be entitled to receive the benefits. With regard to the directions in W.P.No.20392 of 2005, dated 17.08.2006, it was noted that they enable respondent No.4 authority to decide the issue. The reason is convincing.

                  (C). With regard to the main issue as to the entitlement of the workmen and applicability of Section 4(2) of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972, it was observed by the original authority that, in respect of the Sugar Factory, the employees shall be paid gratuity at the rate of 15 days’ wages. The same is acceptable.

                  (D). Further, it is also found that the employer / writ petitioner failed to produce records to establish that the claimants are entitled for only 7 days’ gratuity. When the workmen had discharged their initial burden and the respondents failed to rebut the contentions, the primary authority confirmed the entitlement of the employees.

                  (E). The learned Single Judge further observed that the appellate authority had undertaken a threadbare appreciation of the various provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, particularly Section 4 and dismissed the appeals filed by the employer. Therefore, the orders of the appellate authority, which are impugned in the writ petition, do not require any interference.

11. The objection of the one of the grounds raised by the appellant is that there was no notice to the workmen and hence there is violation of principles of natural justice whereby the orders under appeal are liable to be set-aside. Hearing the other side before taking any decision against the interest of any party is mandatory. The objection as to want of notice, if taken by the party who had not been served with any notice there is some logic to appreciate the same; but when the no adverse order was passed against the party who is not served with the notice, prima facie there cannot be any grievance for the party who has participated in the proceedings. The appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction and at the admission stage, assigning sufficient reasons for not ordering notice, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition protecting the interest of the party for whom notice was not ordered. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are very clear that the monetary value involved is not too high and the respondents are the workmen and the amount is ranging from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.23,000/-. The workmen who are retired, if asked to approach the High Court from the districts, the difficulties they have to face for engaging advocates, more particularly from the financial front, are considered by the learned Single Judge, which is suggesting an empathetic and practical approach with logic and humanitarian concern. The argument that notice ought to have been ordered is found untenable for the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the said argument is rejected.

12. Upon perusal of the orders of the original/controlling authority and the appellate authority, which are concurrent in nature and which have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, we are of the considered view that the orders of the learned Single Judge are well- reasoned and do not require any interference. The point framed is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

13. In view of the findings on Point No.1, the appeal is fit to be dismissed.

14. In the result, Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.