- (1.) a proceeding under section 7 of the payment of gratuity act, 1972 was decided ex parte against the employer. The employer filed an application for review on the ground that no notice was ever given to him. The said application was rejected on the ground that the employer did not appear despite notices having been served on him.
(2.) mr. Bikash ranjan bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not only taken the ground that no notice was ever served on him but also pointed out that gratuity has since been paid and the receipts were disclosed in respect of such payment in full and final settlement, and those were neither denied by each individual nor those were considered in the said order rejecting the application for review. According to him, rule 11(5) of the west bengal payment of gratuity rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules, 1973") provides such jurisdiction to the authority to review its own order on sufficient cause being shown. Accordingly, the petitioner had shown sufficient cause but that was not considered at all. Only on the ground that notices were served, the application was rejected.
(3.) mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the workmen, on the other hand, contends that only to avoid deposit of the money which is provided under section 7(7) of the said act the petitioner is shy of preferring an appeal and is attempting to fight on review. Therefore, the same cannot be done. According to him, no review lies except recalling of the ex parte order. He further contends that there was a diary lodged with the police authority with regard to the payment of gratuity. He contends that the- receipts which were obtained either are not genuine or might have been obtained by coercion or duress.;