N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner-Petlad Municipality. The petitioner has in this petition, put under challenge order dated 4th July, 2013 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in Appeal No. 12 of 2013. The said appeal was directed against order dated 1st November, 2011 passed by the Controlling Authority which directed that the respondent was entitled to me gratuity of Rs. 2,50,108/- with 10% interest thereon. It is further prayed in the petition to remand the case to the appellate authority with a direction to decide me case de novo.

2. The facts stated in nutshell were that me respondent-employee had joined as Safai Kamdar from 11-4-1969 with the Municipality and he retired on reaching me age of superannuation on 31-5-2011. His last pay drawn was Rs. 14,107/-. It was me case of the employee before the Controlling Authority that he was entitled to get Rs. 2,82,144/- towards gratuity. The Controlling Authority, on the basis of material available on record, found that the last pay received by me employee was Rs. 13,137/- p.m. and me employee had put in 33 years of service. On that basis, the order for paying me gratuity, as aforesaid, was passed.

3. The ground on which the appellate authority did not entertain me appeal and dismissed it, was that me same was filed beyond total period of 120 days prescribed for preferring me appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (Hereinafter mentioned as "me Gratuity Act" for sake of brevity). Therefore, whether the delay beyond 120 days occasioned in preferring the appeal before the appellate authority was condonable by the authority is the neat question of law, which falls for consideration.

4. Section 7 of the Gratuity Act deals with determination of the amount of gratuity. Sub-section (4)(a) provides for deposit of the amount of gratuity with the controlling authority by the employer, if there is a dispute as to the payability or admissibility of the gratuity payable. Clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) provides for an application to be made before the controlling authority by either side for deciding the dispute. Against the order of the controlling authority who decides the application which may be made as above after inquiry, an appeal is provided before the appellate authority under sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 7 of the Gratuity Act which reads as under:

"(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-sec. (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-sec. (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount."

4.1. From the reading of above provision, it is clear that the period provided to prefer appeal before the appropriate Government or such other appellate authority which may be specified, against the order of the controlling authority, is 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of controlling authority. The First Proviso permits preferring of appeal within further 60 days provided sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within first 60 days is shown. The Second Proviso imposes a pre-condition of depositing the gratuity amount for admission of appeal by an employer. In other words, maximum period made available by the Legislature is tot