Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Hemant Kumar - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13418 of 2021 & CM Appls. 42298 of 2021, 42299 of 2021 and 42300 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Appeals under the Payment of Gratuity Act must account for Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods during the pandemic, rendering appeals filed within this timeline valid.
Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 7(7) - Appeal dismissed by Appellate Authority on grounds of limitation - Extension of limitation during pandemic per Supreme Court orders applies - Appeal filed within the extended period deemed valid. (Paras 3, 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the Union of India challenging the dismissal of its appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority dated 28th May 2020, which was allegedly barred by limitation due to pandemic conditions.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appeal was not barred by limitation due to the application of the Supreme Court's orders extending the limitation period. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for hearing on merits.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 7(7) of the Act due to the pandemic-related orders of the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s order extending limitation periods during the pandemic, emphasizing that the time period for filing the appeal should be computed in accordance with the directions given in the Supreme Court’s orders. The order of the Appellate Authority was invalidated as the appeal was filed within the proper limitation period and should be heard on the merits.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to appellate authority's ruling. (Para 2) |
| 2. application of supreme court's extension on limitation. (Para 3) |
| 3. limitation period computation under the act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. directives issued to appellate authority. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29th September, 2021 in No. ND.36(29) 2021PADYC titled the Under Secretary (Admin), Ministry of Ayush v. Sh. Hemant Kumar, passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, New Delhi (hereinafter the "Appellate Authority"). By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter "Act") on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation.
3. Mr. Gogna, ld. CGSC submits that in view of the pandemic, the orders of the Supreme Court dated 23rd September, 2021 in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, extending the limitation period, would apply even to the proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, he prays that the Appellate Authority be directed to hear the appeal on merits.
4. Advance copy of this petition is stated to have been served upon the Respondents/Workmen (hereinafter "Workman"). Considering the nature of the dispute, being one of limitation and the fact that the Workman would also be incurring further costs, if notice is issued in the present petition, in the opinion of this Court, no further notice is required. The orders of the Supreme Court passed from time to time are very clear. The latest order of the Supreme Court dated 23rd September, 2021 has excluded the period from 15th March, 2020 to 2nd October, 2021 for the purpose of calculating limitation. The said order of the Supreme Court dated 23rd September, 2021 passed in Misc. Appl. No.665/2021 in SMW(C) 3/2020 reads:
"I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021.
II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply."
5. In the present case, the order of the Controlling Authority is dated 28th May, 2020 and the same was passed during the pandemic. Thus, the period of limitation under Section 7(7) would not expire till 3rd October, 2021.
6. The appeal in the present case is stated to have been filed on 17th September, 2021 and was dismissed on 29th September, 2021. In view of the order of the Supreme Court, the date from the passing of the order by the Controlling Authority till the dismissal of the appeal is completely excluded for calculating the limitation period. Thus, the period of limitation provided under Section 7(7) of the Act has to be read along with the order of the Supreme Court. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal would not be barred by limitation and the appeal deserves to be heard on merits by the Controlling Authority. The impugned order, accordingly, stands set aside.
7. The appeal be now listed before the Appellate Authority on 7th February 2022.
8. The Appellate Authority is directed to issue notice to the Workmen and thereafter proceed with the appeal in accordance with law.
9. The present petition along with all pending miscellaneous applications is disposed of in the above terms. The Appellate authority woul
