Ignorance Of Law Or Proceedings Not A Defense: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Educational Institution's Challenge To Ex-Parte Order On Gratuity Disbursement
The Rajasthan High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by Jodhpur Institute of Engineering and Technology under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 .

The Rajasthan High Court while dismissing challenge put up by Jodhpur Institute Of Engineering And Technology against an ex-parte order has observed that ignorance of the law or proceedings cannot be a defense, especially for an educational institution.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by Jodhpur Institute of Engineering and Technology under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby quasi-judicial order passed by the Joint Labour Commissioner (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) directing the petitioner institute to pay the gratuity to the husband of respondent No.4, who superannuated from the post of Registrar was upheld.
The single-bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, "It appears that the petitioner was duly served notices about the proceedings before the Controlling Authority but failed to appear or respond. This indicates a lack of due diligence, and the resulting ex-parte order was a consequence of their negligence, their own doing, not a procedural lapse. Ignorance of the law or proceedings cannot be a defense, especially for an educational institution expected to operate within legal frameworks. Moreover, the petitioner delayed filing the appeal beyond the permissible 120-day limit under the Payment of Gratuity Act."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rajesh Shah while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjeev Johari.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had also assailed the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by which the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed.
The Husband of Respondent No.4, filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 against the Petitioner seeking direction for payment of gratuity. Notices were issued and were served upon the petitioner but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and issued direction under Section 7(3)(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.11,55,375/- with interest and also ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
Reasoning By Court
The Court noted that the Petitioner cannot plead ignorance of proceedings in its defense.
"At the very threshhold, having seen the merits of the case, I am unable to persuade myself with the stand taken by the petitioner-institute. No doubt, at the first instance, the petitioner may not have been heard by the Controlling Authority but subsequently, it challenged the said order before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority passed the order after hearing both the parties. Same is premised on the reasoning that since the appeal was filed after a delay of more than 120 days it had to be dismissed. I am in agreement with the reasons assigned therein. Moreover, it transpires that the order passed by the Controlling Authority has already been implemented. The gratuity amount stands disbursed," the Court observed.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Jodhpur Institute Of Engineering And Technology (Jiet) vs. Appellate Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 (2024:RJ-JD:44190)
Click here to read/ download Order