( 1 ) A batch of writ petitions questioning the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Centra!) under which order he has rejected the objection of the writ petitioner - respondent (the employer) as to the delay in filing the claim application for gratuity, has been allowed by the learned single judge. Employees have preferred the instant appeals.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the appellant - employees served for the full term of employment and retired and on their retirement, became entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act ) and the Rules framed thereunder. Their demands, however, for non-payment of certain part of gratuity were inordinately delayed as their services were terminated ranging from 1973 to 1993. The management responded to their demands in the proceeding by stating that they had already been paid gratuity as per their entitlements under the Act and after such inordinate delay, it was not desirable to entertain their claims. Appellants, however, maintained that they were not aware of the beneficial provisions of the Act, when their services were terminated. As soon as they came to know through their co-workers they submitted their claim applications before the proper authority for their due gratuity. On the question, however, of condonation of delay, we shall refer to the relevant provisions later in our judgment. The Controlling Authority under the Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) has stated as follows:"the applicants also stated that it is obligatory on the part of the employer to calculate the gratuity amount correctly in accordance with the provisions of law. Whereas this fact came to their notice through the case of Sri P. V. Raju that the Management has not calculated the gratuity amount as due to them. As such, the delay has occurred in filing the present cases. The Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Madar Union sanitarium and Hospital vs. M. B. Sathe and others (1986-II LLJ 135) inter alia observed that "the person who is not technical and legal minded is generally entitled for the benefitof condonation of delay, specially under beneficial legislation enacted for the welfare of the people". In the instant case, undisputedly, the applicants are not legal minded; as such they cannot be denied the benefit of condonation. The opposite party in Ex. M-1 al so mentioned one of the reasons for not condoning the delay as the petition lacks bow fides. It is held vague and devoid of even prima facie case for seeking condonation of delay extending over 20 years. The applicants have received gratuity payable under the payment of Gratuity Actimmediately after their superannuation without any demur and protest. Surprisingly, the applicants have chosen to come forward with the present unjust claim on vexatious grounds after a considerable lapse of time with the motive to make unlawful gain by a mere chance, if possible. Whereas the applicants have stated that their claims are bona fide and have merits to meet the justice if they are offered the opportunity. It is true that without hearing the parties and without offering opportunities to the parties, it cannot be said that their claims lack bona fides and whether their claims are unjust claims on vexatious grounds with the motive to make unlawful gain by mere chance or not. Regarding sufficient cause for delay, the applicants relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector, land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others and stated that the expression "sufficient cause" is elastic enough to apply the law in a meaningful manner to subserve the ends of justice and that liberal approach should be adopted. In the instant case, though the services of the applicants were terminated in between 1973 to 1993, they were not aware of their legitimate right for getting their due gratuity. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document