Rawel Singh Vs. the State of Punjab, Through Secretary to Government, Transport Department and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1982. on his retirement, he made a representation to the state of punjab as well as the general manager, punjab roadways, for the payment of gratuity amount due to him. there was some confusion at the level of punjab roadways as well as state of punjab, as to who is infact liable to pay the gratuity amount. the general manager, punjab roadways, jalandhar, as well as municipal corporation, jalandhar.v.k. jhanji, j.1. this revision petition is directed against the order of appellate authority under the payment of wages act, dismissing the case of the the petitioner for grant of gratuity amount due to him consequent upon his retirement.2. the petitioner joined the service of the punjab roadways as a driver on 17.4.1951. he continued to serve as such till january, 1980 when his services were transferred to municipal corporation, jalandhar. the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1982. on his retirement, he made a representation to the state of punjab as well as the general manager, punjab roadways, for the payment of gratuity amount due to him. there was some confusion at the level of punjab roadways as well as state of punjab, as to who is infact liable to pay the gratuity amount. the petitioner was entitled to gratuity amount for the period he served the punjab roadways, and the municipal corporation was saying that it was liable to pay the amount only for the period the petitioner served in the corporation. the petitioner thereafter, served a notice on 1.9.1982 under section 80, code of civil procedure, on the state of punjab, through its secretary, government of punjab, local self department. the general manager, punjab roadways, jalandhar, as well as municipal corporation, jalandhar. despite the issuance of said notice, the full gratuity amount was not paid to the petitioner. therefore, the petitioner was left with no other remedy except to approach the authority under the payment of wages act, by way of an application for the grant of said amount.3. the application was contested by the respondents. on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the authority under the payment of wages act :-1. whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application opr.2. whether the application is not maintainable under payment of wages act opr.3. whether the application is barred by limitation opr.4. whether the applicant is entitled to recover rs. 16,675/- on account of gratuity. if so, from whom opa.5. relief.issues nos. 1 to 3 were not pressed and consequently, application of the petitioner was allowed and he was held entitled to gratuity amount, from respondent no. 3. the municipal corporation was directed to pay the total amount of gratuity to the petitioner, after adjusting the amount already paid to him. this order was impugned by respondent no. 3 before the additional district judge, jalandhar, who is the appellate authority under the act. though issues no. 1 to 3 were not pressed before the first court, yet at the bar, it was stated before the appellate authority that the issues were pressed. the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 3 and dismissed the application of the petitioner which was allowed by the first court only on the ground of limitation. however, at the same time, the appellate authority found that respondent no. 3 alone is liable to-pay the gratuity to the petitioner. this order is being impugned by way of present revision petition.4. after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, i am of the view that the revision petition deserves to succeed.5. the application of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority primarily on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the act. the plea of limitation was never pressed before the first court and therefore, i fall to understand, that how a plea which had been abandoned by the respondent, could be re-agitated before the appellate authority even on record, i find that the petitioner immediately after his retirement started making representations for the release of gratuity amount, but due to confusion at the level of municipal corporation and punjab roadways, the same was not paid to him. he also served a notice under section 80, c.p.c. but no attention whatsoever was paid by the respondent. if the appellate authority had taken this aspect of the matter into consideration, delay if any, was liable to be condoned. counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out anything from the record that the delay on the part of the petitioner was deliberate.6. consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the appellate authority is set aside. respondent no. 3 is directed to pay the amount of gratuity, if not paid, after adjustment of amount already paid, to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.7. in case, the municipal corporation is entitled for any reimbursement on account of payment of gratuity to the petitioner, the corporation shall be entitled to proceed and recover the same from the punjab government.8. the parties are left to bear their own costs.