JUDGMENT :

Piyush Agrawal, J.

1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.6.2019 passed by the controlling authority, respondent no. 1 under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1972’) in P.G. Appeal No. 1/2019 as well as the impugned order dated 6.7.2019 and 29.11.2017 passed by respondent-2 in P.G. Case No. 09 of 2016.

2. Brief case are that respondent no. 3 (herein after referred to as ‘the workman’) was initially engaged on 1.2.1998 as Beldar in Work Charge Establishment by the petitioners and continuously worked till 12.10.2011 in the office of petitioner no. 2 in the same status. Thereafter by the order of Executive Engineer, Tone Pump Canal, Prayagraj, the workman was relieved on 13.10.2011 and directed to join in regular establishment. In pursuance thereof the workman joined in regular establishment on 14.10.2011, on the pay Scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200/- Grade Pay Rs. 1,800/-.

3. Subsequently, on 31.1.2015, the workman was made permanent and after completion of age of 60 years, he was superannuated on 29.2.2016. The workman had worked 13 years 08 months and 13 days as work charge employee and thereafter regularized and had discharged total 04 years, 04 months and 16 days of service as permanent employee. Accordingly at the time of superannuation, the workman had not completed 05 years service as regular/permanent employee as such he was paid gratuity of Rs. 1,11,663/- against the service of work charge employee.

4. On 24.12.2016, the workman set up his claim before the concerned authority under Section 4 of the Act, 1972, claiming gratuity of Rs. 4,56,600/- along with 12% interest for a period of 1.6.1975 to 29.2.2016, for about 40 years of his service. The petitioners filed objection in which it was stated that the workman was employee on work charge in the establishment on 1.2.1998 to 13.10.2011. Moreover, there was no case of payment of gratuity. The gratuity which was admitted by the petitioners, had been paid of Rs. 1,11,663/- to the workman. The stand was taken that the workman has not completed minimum 05 years of service as regular employee as per sub Rule 4 of the Rules, 1972, therefore, there was no question of payment of gratuity under the Act, 1972.

5. Thereafter the order dated 16.7.2017 was passed accepting the claim of the workman and direction was issued for payment of gratuity of sum of Rs. 3,44,937/- along with interest at the rate of 8% after deducting Rs. 1,11,663/-. The petitioners moved recall application on 26.8.2017, which was rejected on 29.11.2017 on the ground that the petitioners have alternative remedy of filing of statutory appeal which could be preferred under the Act, 1972 as per sub-section 7 of Section 7.

6. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal on 15.11.2018 before the appellate authority under sub-section 7 of Section 7 of the Act, 1972. The said appeal was filed along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was supported by the affidavit. The appeal was filed for payment of requisite amount as prescribed under the Act, 1972. The workman filed his objection opposing the maintainability of the appeal as has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided under sub-section 7 of Section 7 of the Act, 1972. The workman has submitted that the appeal was highly belated and should be rejected on this ground alone. The appellate authority by the impugned order dated 17.6.2018 had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that the appeal is beyond the period prescribed under sub-section 7 of Section 7 of the Act. Against the order dated 17.6.2018, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the appeal has been rejected solely on the ground that it has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section 7 of section 7 of the Act, 1972, a