R. Rajendra Babu, J.

Smt. R.P.Vincent, the 3rd respondent, was working as part-time Civilian Nurse in the Family Clinic, Naval Base, Cochin. She was superannuated on 30th September, 1999. As the gratuity amount due to her was not paid by the naval authorities, she filed an application before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Kochi, the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereafter referred to as the authority) for an order directing the petitioners herein to pay the gratuity. By Ext.P1 order dated 12th December, 2000, the authority allowed an amount of Rs.36,260 towards gratuity and the naval authorities were directed to pay the amount. The 1st petitioner viz. the Officer-in-charge, Station Health Organisation, Naval Base, Kochi, challenged the above order by filing an Original Petition before this Court as O.P.2000/01. Along with the O.P. the 1st petitioner filed C.M.P. 3400/01 for an interim order to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P1 order and by Ext.P2 order dated 25th January, 2001 this Court passed an interim order of stay for two weeks. Thereafter by Ext.P3 Judgment dated 21st March, 2001 the O.P. was dismissed holding that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available under the Payment of Gratuity Act by preferring an appeal and hence the order of the controlling authority could not be challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act as G.A. No.8/2001/B-1 with a petition for condoning the delay. The above petition for condoning the delay was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by Ext.P5 order holding that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay when the appeal was filed beyond 120 days from the date of service of the copy of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners have filed this O.P. challenging the above order.

2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was sixty-six days delay in filing the appeal and the delay was due to the prosecution of the Original Petition O.P. 2000/01 filed before this Court challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Authority. It was submitted that O.P. 2000/2001 was filed before this Court for quashing Ext.P1 order and the petitioners were prosecuting the above matter in good faith and there was no wilful laches from their part in challenging Ext.P1 order and hence the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction and was competent to condone the delay of the entire sixty-six days in preferring the appeal. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that in view of S.7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, an appeal has to be filed before the Appellate Authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P1 order and the Appellate Authority can condone the delay of a period of 60 days and thus an appeal can be entertained by the Appellate Authority only if it is filed within 120 days. It was further submitted that when the statute has prescribed the period of limitation and also prescribed the period of time which can be condoned by the Appellate Authority, there is no scope or jurisdiction for condoning any further delay and there is an implied legislative prohibition to the Appellate Authority from admitting any appeal which is filed beyond the period of 120 days. S.7(7) of the Act reads:

7(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-s.(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 sixt