Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Gajanan Vithoba Jain, a former employee of the respondent-management running Shiv Vaibhav College of Education, Wardha, filed an application under Sections 4 and 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, read with Rule 10 of the Rules, claiming gratuity. The Controlling Authority (Labour Court) allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs.11,65,372/- with simple interest at 10% p.a. from 30/06/2018. The respondent appealed under Section 7(7) of the Act before the Appellate Authority (Industrial Court), contending that it was proceeded ex-parte and certain material facts could not be brought to the notice of the Controlling Authority. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 26/10/2021, set aside the Controlling Authority's order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The petitioner challenged this remand order before the High Court. The core legal issue was whether the Appellate Authority under Section 7(8) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has the power to remand a case to the Controlling Authority. The High Court examined the language of Section 7(8), which empowers the Appellate Authority to 'confirm', 'modify' or 'reverse' the decision of the Controlling Authority. The Court held that the power to remand is not expressly or impliedly conferred by the provision. The Appellate Authority must decide the appeal on merits and cannot abdicate its function by remanding the matter. The Court set aside the remand order and restored the appeal to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Gratuity Law - Appellate Authority's Power - Remand - Section 7(8) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The Appellate Authority under Section 7(8) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has no power to remand the matter to the Controlling Authority. The provision only empowers the Appellate Authority to 'confirm', 'modify' or 'reverse' the decision of the Controlling Authority. The order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority was held to be without jurisdiction and set aside. The matter was restored to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal on merits. (Paras 3, 6-8) B) Gratuity Law - Controlling Authority - Ex-parte Proceedings - Remand - Section 7(8) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The respondent-management was proceeded ex-parte before the Controlling Authority and did not participate. The Appellate Authority, instead of deciding the appeal on merits, remanded the matter. The High Court held that the Appellate Authority must decide the appeal itself and cannot remand. (Paras 4-5, 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Authority under Section 7(8) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has the jurisdiction to pass an order of remand to the Controlling Authority.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26/10/2021 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act
- 1972 has no power to remand
- Section 7(8) confers only confirm
- modify or reverse
- Remand order is without jurisdiction
- Order of remand set aside
- Matter restored to Appellate Authority for fresh disposal on merits
