The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Exhibits P4 and P5 orders by which gratuity has been granted to respondents 3 and 4 by the second respondent. The petitioners are the wife and son of late Krishnan who was the proprietor of a cashew factory. Respondents 3 and 4 are the employees who had preferred the application under the Payment of Gratuity Act. As per Exhibit P1, the gratuity due to the employees were determined. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the entire gratuity that was determined has been paid by late Krishnan. He had also preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, he passed away. The petitioners were brought on party array as the legal representatives of late Krishnan. The first respondent considered the appeal and allowed the same by Exhibit P3 order dated 21.10.2008. W.P.(C) No.13959 of 2014-T -:2:-
2. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.10251 of 2013. The said writ petition was filed by respondents 3 and 4. Pursuant to directions issued in Exhibit P3, the second respondent reconsidered the matter and passed Exhibit P4 order directing payment of the amount of gratuity that was determined. The 5th respondent had filed a review petition challenging Exhibit P4. The said review petition has been dismissed by Exhibit P5 directing initiation of Revenue Recovery proceedings against the petitioners and the 5th respondent. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P4 and P5.
3. Heard Advocate B. Mohan Lal who appears for the petitioners.
4. It is worth noticing that, the order passed by the appellate authority under the Gratuity Act, Exhibit P3, dated 21.10.2008 has become final. The petitioners and the 5th respondent were brought on party array in the appeal, in their capacity as legal representatives of the diseased Krishnan. Therefore, they are bound by the said order.
W.P.(C) No.13959 of 2014-T -:3:-
Their liability to pay the gratuity amount cannot be disputed at this length of time.
5. Thereafter, by Exhibit P4, the amount of gratuity payable was determined. The said proceedings are dated 03.10.2009. Only the 5th respondent challenged the same by filing a review petition that has been dismissed by Exhibit P5. The 5th respondent has not joined this writ petition in challenging Exhibit P5. The petitioners who had not challenged Exhibit P3 or Exhibit P4 at the appropriate time cannot challenge the said proceedings in this writ petition. The obvious attempt is only to delay payment of the amount of gratuity that has been determined by the authority. For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to admit this writ petition. The same is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj