Jurisdictional issues regarding the applicability of the Gratuity Act must be addressed by the Appellate Authority before dismissing an appeal on delay grounds.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present writ challenges the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter "Gratuity Act") dated 23rd February, 2021 in Gratuity Appeal No. 36(08)/2021 P.A.DYV. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay as being beyond limitation in terms of Section 7(7) of the Gratuity Act. The original impugned order by the Controlling Authority, bearing No. ALC II 36(25)/2016 dated 25th August, 2020, awarded a sum of Rs.2,38,430/- along with simple interest at 10% to the Workman, from the exact date of retirement of the Workman till the date the amount of gratuity actually paid.

3. The submissions of Ms. Sarika Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner are three-fold:

(i) that the delay ought to have been condoned and the matter ought to be heard on merits;

(ii) that the Gratuity Act would not apply and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter "CCS Rules"), would be applicable to the Workman; and

(iii) that there is no evidence of the Workman having worked with the Petitioner for a period of eight years and eight months.

Thus, she submits the award of the said amount by the Controlling Authority is untenable.

4. This Court has in Union of India v. Ramesh Chand [W.P.(C.) 6115/2021, decided on 6th July, 2021], taking into consideration the decision in Union of India v. Manik Lal Banerjee, (2006) 9 SCC 643, held that in the case of workmen who are governed by the CCS Rules, the applicability of the Gratuity Act would have to be considered by the Authorities concerned. The observations in the said judgment are set out below:-

"9. The issue relating to non-applicability of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the applicability of CCS Rules to the Respondents, has not been considered either by the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has simply rejected the appeal as being barred by limitation. A perusal of the Appeal filed shows that there is a specific ground that the Respondent is governed by the CCS Rules. The relevant provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is extracted below:

"Section 2. Definitions.

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

...

(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity."

10. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Manik Lal Banerjee, (2006) 9 SCC 643, in a case concerning an employee of the Railways, considered the applicability of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and held as under:

"10. The 1972 Act was enacted to provide for a scheme inter alia for payment of gratuity to employees in relation to railway companies.

11. Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act defines "employee" to mean

"any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory,