S.C. GUPTE, J.

1. The present petition challenges orders passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Industrial Court in an appeal from that order.

2. The Respondent was working as a teacher in a private aided primary school. She superannuated on 31 August 2013. She claimed gratuity from the Petitioner corporation as part of salary aid and approached the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“Act”) for the same. The learned Labour Judge, acting as controlling authority under the Act, issued notice to the Petitioner corporation. Since the corporation remained absent, the matter was heard ex-parte. The controlling authority, by its impugned order, granted the Respondent's application for gratuity and ordered the corporation to pay gratuity in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the Respondent. The corporation thereafter applied for setting aside of the ex-parte order and restoration of the application. The application was rejected by the Labour Court. The corporation thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act challenging both orders, i.e. the order originally passed by the controlling authority under Section 7(4) and the order passed under Rule 11(5) of the Rules framed thereunder on the application for restoration. The Industrial Court dismissed the appeal. The Industrial Court upheld the order of the Labour Court rejecting the corporation's application for restoration, treating it as an application for review and, thus, barred under Rule 11(5). The court held that there was a delay of about 5 months and 17 days in filing the application for review. The court held that any application for review and rehearing of the application must be preferred within 30 days of the ex-parte order under the proviso to Rule 11(5). The court also held that since the order passed by the controlling authority was not challenged before the Industrial Court under Section 7(7) of the Act within 120 days, the order had become final and could not be challenged by invoking the provisions of Rule 11(5). The court, though it found substance in the corporation's case on merits, considering, however, its conclusion that the appeal was not maintainable on account of the bar of limitation, was of the view that merits of the case could not be examined. The court, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. The corporation has approached this court challenging all three orders, namely, the order of the Labour Court under Section 7(4) of the Act, its order on the application for review and rehearing under the proviso to Rule 11(5) and the appellate order passed under Section 7(7) of the Act.

3. Though the impugned order of the Industrial Court in appeal cannot be faulted per se on consideration of Rule 11(5) of the Rules or, for that matter, the bar of limitation under Section 7(7) for filing an appeal from the original order, Mr. Pakale, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that since the order of the controlling authority is a complete nullity, the considerations of limitation apart, this court ought to quash the same on merits as an order nonest or wholly without jurisdiction.

4. Before we consider the relevant provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and the position of the Respondent teacher vis-a-vis the Petitioner corporation under that Act, it must be noted that the corporation has its own rules, under which it pays gratuity to teachers of aided schools, who have completed ten years of service. These gratuity rules are contained in a circular issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on 31 October 1997. If one has regard to the history of terminal benefits extended by the Municipal Corporation to approved staff of private primary aided schools, it may be seen that the corporation did not have any scheme for payment of pension or gratuity to the staff of primary aided school of Greater Mumbai. It had pension rules for its own employees, that is to say, municipal s