Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 620
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
Indamer Company Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Krishan Lal Chopra
W.P.(C) No. 7397 of 2013
Decided On : 25-02-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Tanu Priya Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: in person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond the prescribed period under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Headnote:
Gratuity - Challenge to Controlling Authority's Order - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 7(7) - Summary: The court addressed the challenge to the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the subsequent appellate orders. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 7(7) of the Act, which prescribes the time limit for filing an appeal and the authority's power to condone the delay. The court's decision was influenced by interpretations of similar provisions in other cases, emphasizing that the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond the prescribed period.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent claimed gratuity for the period of service from 1996 to 2011. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed as it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The court held that the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay beyond the specified period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to being beyond the limitation period, citing previous judgments on similar provisions.
Issues: Challenge to the order of the Controlling Authority, dismissal of the appeal due to delay, and grant of additional interest by the Appellate Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, emphasizing that the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond the prescribed period.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, with the court holding that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to being beyond the limitation period. The court did not address the merit of the case.
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated June 26, 2012 of the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘Act’ in short) and orders dated April 03, 2013 and August 30, 2013 of the Appellate Authority, by which the Controlling Authority has granted an amount of Rs.5,99,279/- to the respondent together with simple interest @ 10% p.a and the appeal and review of the appellate order were dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent was appointed as a Retainer initially vide order dated July 31, 1996 which arrangement continued till April, 2011. In the month of May, 2012, the respondent submitted an application to the Controlling Authority making a claim for gratuity for the period of service put in by him from August 01, 1996 to April 21, 2011. The said application was allowed by the Controlling Authority on June 26, 2012 thereby granting to the respondent an amount of Rs.5,99,279/- as gratuity with simple interest @ 10% p.a. W.P.(C)7397/2013 Page 2 of 9
3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on March 20, 2013 which was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 7(7) of the Act, which is reproduced as under:
“(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub- section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf: Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days:
[Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub- section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount]”.
4. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated April 03, 2013 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner is not eligible to be admitted because the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Act, which required them to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.
5. The petitioner filed a review application/recalling of order dated April 03, 2013 inter-alia on the ground that the Appellate Authority has not provided personal hearing and no reasonable opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner before disposing the appeal. The said application for review/recalling of the order was decided by the Appellate Authority on August 30, 2013 whereby the Appellate Authority has concluded as under:
“On the issue of delay on the part of the appellant in making the appeal within time, it is beyond the powers of the Appellate Authority to take cognizance of the appeal beyond a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the order by appellate tinder the provisions of section 7(7) of the Act.
The Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Commissioner of Custom and Excise V/s. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. and another in 5 SCC 791 (2009) has held that whenever statutory provision is made to file appeal within a particular period in an enactment, then in such cases provisions of Limitation Act is not made applicable. Further the M.P. High Court in case of Western Coalfield Limited Vs. Controlling Authority & others 2000 LLR 881; the Bombay High Court in case of Shri Gurudev Ayurved Mahavidalava Gurukul Ashram & another vs. V. Mahadev & others 1994 LLR 894: 1994-1 LLN 552; the Calcutta High Court in case of Gloster Jute Mills Limited
