The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allow for condonation of delay in filing appeals, are not applicable to appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as the Appellate Authority is not a court but an executive authority with quasi-judicial powers.

1. BY the order complained of in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Deputy secretary, Government of West Bengal, Labour Department acting as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 has rejected the prayer of the: appellant, who is the petitioner before us for condonation of delay in filing its appeal under Section 7 (7) of the said Act and has also dismissed the said appeal as time-barred. The Appellate Authority has not thereby committed any error of jurisdiction and therefore we are unable to interfere under Article 22 7 of the Constitution with the said decision of the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. MANINDRA Kishore Chakraborty, the opposite party No. 3 in the Revisional Application, was a Lecturer of Philosophy in the City College. On 13th May, 1974 he had finally retired at the end of extended period of his service. On 15th June, 1981 he had purported to. make an application under Rule 10 (a)of the Payment of Gratuity Scheme before the Controlling Authority, West Bengal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972". On 1st February, 1983 the Controlling Authority, the opposite party no. 2 herein, had passed his order under Section 7 (4)of the said Act holding that the applicant, Manindra Kishore chakraborty, was entitled to gratuity amounting to Rs. 10, 153. 85p. from his erstwhile employer and the latter was liable to pay the amount determined above1 within the prescribed time. Direction for payment of gratuity was issued. On 9th February, 1984 the present petitioner had moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an application challenging the said order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 passed in favour of the opposite party No. 3, manindra Kishore Chakraborty. On 20th June, 1984, Borooah, j. disposed of the said application under Article 226 of the constitution giving the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority w ; bin a fortnight from date together with an application for condonation of delay. The learned Judge had observed that the Appellate Authority might sympathetica 1ly consider the application for condonation of delay. If within the period of two weeks the appeal was not filed, the sum of Rs. 10000/- which has been deposited be handed over to the said Manindra Kishore Chakraborty, the respondent no. 3, or his learned advocate. On 2nd July, 1984 the petitioner filed the instant appeal under Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the appellate Authority against the order of the Controlling Authority,, the opposite party No. 2 dated 1st February, 1983. As already stated, the petitioner had also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 19 63 for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal before the Appellate Authority. The opposite party No. 3 had apposed the said application under seer ion 5 of the Limitation Act. and has also contested the appeal. The main point in the is Revisional Application is whether the Appellate Authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by holding that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable to the said appeal filed under Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972 and that the Appellate Authority had no scope under the Payment of Gratuity Act to condone the delay of more than 120 days in filing an appeal before Mr. Pal, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes sections 4 to 24 of the said Act applicable to appeals provided under Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which is a Special law prescribing a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act. We are unable to accept this submission of Mr. Pal.

3. V. Balakrishna Eradi and Sabyasachi Mukherji, JJ. in the case of Sakuru v. T