The requirement of pre-deposit of the awarded gratuity amount under the Payment of Gratuity Act is a mandatory condition precedent for the admission of an appeal, and failure to comply with this statutory mandate justifies the dismissal of an appeal and renders a challenge against such dismissal non-maintainable.

ORDER :

SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.

1] This order shall also govern the disposal of the connected batch of writ petitions, regard being had to the similitude of the issue involved.

2] This petition has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2024, passed in Gratuity Appeal Case No.177/2024, by the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1972’), whereby the petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972, which provides for deposition of an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under Sub-Section (4).

3] A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent No.3, contending that the petition is not maintainable, as the Appellate Authority has rightly passed the order directing the petitioner to comply with the mandatory provision of pre-deposit, and in the absence of the same, the order has been passed, and in such circumstances the petitioner cannot assail the aforesaid order, as also the original order dated 16.07.2024, whereby, it has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,64,000/- towards payment of gratuity.

4] The prayer is vehemently opposed by Shri Amay Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, and it is submitted that the petitioner does not even fall within the purview of the Act of 1972, Section 2(e) of which provides for the definition of employee. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited Vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another , passed in SLP (C) No.2379 of 2025 dated 22.01.2025, wherein, the question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against an order passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MSME Act’), as admittedly, against an order passed under Section 18 of the Act, an appeal is maintainable under Section 19, which provides for deposition of 75% of the awarded amount, and while referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court, the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench of five Judges, specifically referring the question that, “if the bar/prohibition is not absolute, when under what circumstances will the principle/restriction of adequate alternative remedy not apply?”

5] In such circumstances, it is submitted that till the aforesaid question is answered by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, the impugned order may be stayed.

6] Counsel has also relied upon the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in W.P. No.8082/2025 dated 18.03.2025 ( Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. Shri G.S. Parmar and Others ).

7] Having considered the rival submissions, on perusal of documents filed on record, as also the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972, it is found that Section 7(7) reads as under:-

“(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (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-section (4), or deposits