( 1 ) THE Respondent in the C. R. P-Boddu Rambabu moved an application C. M. P. No. 22652 of 2003 to vacate the interim stay granted by this court on 8. 8. 2003 in C. M. P. NO. 17523 of 2003 in C. R. P. No. 3724 of 2003. Both the counsel on record had advanced elaborate arguments and requested for final disposal of the C. R. P. and that is how the C. R. P. is being finally disposed of.

( 2 ) M/s Vensa Bioteck Limited, the revision petitioner aggrieved by the order made by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajahmundry made in P. G. M. P. No. 1a of 2002 in p. G. No. 1 of 2003 dated 15. 6. 2003 had preferred the present C. R. P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the concerned authority had condoned the delay of 266 days in making application under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1972.

( 3 ) SRI S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court that the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (hereinafter in short called as "the Controlling authority") had condoned the delay of 266 days on an application made under sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 without any cause much less sufficient cause. The learned Counsel also submitted that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to such applications and strong reliance was placed on the judgment of WARANGAL district COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED v. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF gratuity ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri N. V. Anantha Krishna representing the vacate petitioner/respondent in the C. R. P. had contended that the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972 itself is a social welfare legislation and hence the provisions are to be liberally construed. The learned counsel also had contended that Rule 10 (1) of the A. P. Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 is just in pari materia to Rule 10 (1) of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. The learned Counsel also further submitted that reasons had been recorded by the Controlling Authority for condoning the delay. It was further contended that it is doubtful whether there is any delay at all, but the fact remains that taking into consideration the nature and the object of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, discretion was exercised by the Controlling Authority and hence the same need not be disturbed. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench in the case of v. VENKATESWARA RAO v. CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, S. M. V. M. POLYTECHNIC, TANUKU and OTHERS. Heard both the counsel.

( 5 ) IN the impugned order questioned in the present C. R. P. in an application made under Section 10 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Rules" for the purpose of convenience), delay of 266 days had been condoned. It was stated that the respondent worked in the petitioner company from 17. 12. 1991 to 23. 1. 2002 for about 10 years and had resigned on 23. 1. 2002 and had claimed for gratuity from the Respondent, but however, the gratuity was not paid. No doubt certain other additional details have been explained which had not been narrated in the impugned order. It is also stated that the Respondent had approached the revision petitioner company several times for payment of gratuity and the delay caused was not due to his negligence, but for the reason that he was waiting amicable settlement with the management. Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, the Controlling Authority had exercised the discretion and had condoned the delay. As already referred to supra, the Andhra Pradesh Rule 10 (1) is in pari materia with Central Rule and Rule 10 deals with application to controlling Authority for direction. The Andhra Pradesh payment of Gratuityrules 1972 were made in exercise of