Adjudicatory authorities cannot dismiss gratuity claims for non-service when registered addresses of employers are available.

The petitioner filed a claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 against his former employer, M/s Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. (Respondent No. 2).

On 20.02.2026, the Controlling Authority (Respondent No. 1) passed an order dismissing the petitioner’s claim solely because notices sent to the company at its Gurgaon address were returned unserved and its whereabouts were deemed untraceable.

The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition, contending that the authority abdicated its adjudicatory functions.

During the High Court proceedings, the Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted a communication stating that service had subsequently been effected at the company's Hyderabad address in a related matter, and therefore, the petitioner’s case was being restored for hearing on 21.05.2026.

1. Whether the Controlling Authority was justified in dismissing a statutory claim for gratuity merely due to the failure of service of notice on the respondent at one of its known addresses.

2. Whether the conduct of the concerned authority in passing a dismissal order and subsequently issuing a contradictory administrative communication reflects a failure of the adjudicatory process.

The Court applied the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which mandates the Controlling Authority to adjudicate claims on their merits.

The Court further relied on the principles of natural justice and administrative law, which prohibit authorities from "non-suiting" a claimant or abdicating adjudicatory functions due to procedural hurdles like service of notice, especially when registered addresses are available.

The Court observed that the Controlling Authority acted with a "casual and lackadaisical manner" by dismissing the case because the Gurgaon office was non-functioning.

It noted that the petitioner had taken appropriate steps to provide registered addresses and should not suffer adverse consequences if the respondent’s whereabouts were difficult to verify.

The Court highlighted the inconsistency in the Authority's conduct: while the formal order on 20.02.2026 recorded the matter as "dismissed," a subsequent internal communication by the same officer claimed the matter was still active and listed for May 2026 because service had been successful at a different address.

The Court determined that such matters involving statutory dues like gratuity require higher sensitivity and diligence than what was displayed by the Respondent No. 1.

The Court directed the Controlling Authority to complete the adjudicatory exercise in an "expeditious manner" within three months from the date of the order. The Court issued a formal caution to the concerned officer regarding their conduct and warned that any future lapses would result in strictures and the imposition of costs. The petition was disposed of with these directions.