The Payment of Gratuity Act provides for terminal benefits for long and meritorious service, distinct from other schemes such as the Provident Fund Act.

1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions is the very same officer of the Thanjavur Maharaja Sarfoji Sarasvati Mahal Library, Thanjavur. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in two gratuity appeals, dated 12.03.2010, the present writ petitions have been filed.

2. The petitioner challenging the order passed by the controlling authority, dated 25.05.2006 granting gratuity for the contesting respondents for the service rendered by them in the petitioner library. The arguments of the petitioner before the controlling authority was that the employees engaged by the library are covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and therefore, they are not eligible to get gratuity and hence the applications filed by the contesting respondents were not valid. However, the controlling authority found against the petitioner by order, dated 25.05.2006 under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and appeals will have to be filed before the appellate authority within 60 days and the said appellate authority has also got power to condone further period of 60 days and altogether the appeals will have to be filed within 120 days.

3. Further, the condition precedent for filing the appeals, the appellant will have to deposit the entire gratuity amount before the controlling authority. As required under second proviso to Section 7(7) of the Act, the petitioner did not deposit the entire deposit amount and rest contended by depositing only 50%, the appellate authority rejected the appeals on two grounds namely, i)the second proviso to Section 7(7) was not fulfilled inasmuch as the entire amount of gratuity was not deposited though the petitioner claimed that due to paucity of funds, the act provides for exemption from such deposit, therefore, on that ground, the appeals filed by the petitioner was non suited. The second ground urged by the petitioner was that the delay in filing the appeals must be condoned. The authority found that in terms of Section 7(7), the first proviso to Section 7(7), he has power to only condone the delay of further 60 days whereas in the present case, as against the said order dated 25.05.2006 which was allegedly received by them on 06.07.2006.

4. The objection raised by the respondents before the appellate authority that appeal has to be filed within two months and further period of two months delay can be condoned in filing the appeal ought on or before 03.11.2006, whereas the appeal has been filed in the present case only on 01.08.2007. Therefore, the authority rightly refused to condone the delay as he will act as per statutory power in entertaining the appeal. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the first respondent appellate authority, the present writ petitions have been filed.

5. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner reiterated the very same contentions raised before the controlling authority as well as the appellate authority.

6. When the statute provides an appeal in a particular mode and also provides for limitation then any person aggrieved ought to have filed appeal only within the time prescribed and the authority cannot condone the delay for the period which has not been authorised when once the statute covers the field, this Court under Article 226 cannot direct the authorities to extend the period of limitation which power this Court lacks completely. In essence this Court cannot direct the authority to do something which does not authorise in law. However, to find out whether the petitioner had the arguable case, even before the appellate authority then the Court went to the objection raised by the petitioner before the controlling authority.

7. The other contention was that the scheme of contributory provident fund scheme applicable to the employees, is the only terminal benefits to which the employees entitled to and the Payment of Gratuity Act will not apply. This conten