In exceptional cases where a party is deprived of knowledge of an order due to a representative's negligence, the court may invoke its discretionary power under Article 226 to fix the date of knowledge as the starting point for limitation in the interest of justice.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the certificate dated 9th February, 2026 issued by the respondent no. 1 being the controlling authority herein, in file no. 48/04/2022-E3 and has prayed for quashing of the same along with an order dated 18th August, 2025 also issued by the respondent no. 1 the controlling authority.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent herein submits that the said order dated 18th August, 2025 is an appealable order. But as no appeal has been preferred by the petitioners till date, the same is barred by limitation and the period of limitation cannot be extended beyond the permissible limit as provided in the statute in the present case under Section 7(7) of the payment of gratuity act.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments:-

i. City College, Calcutta vs State of West Bengal and Ors., decided on February 10, 1986.

ii. Ali Hossain vs M/s. Budge Budge Co. Ltd. & Ors. in FMA No. 3595 of 2015 decided on 13.07.2018.

4. The petitioner on the other hand has relied upon the following judgment:-

(i) City College, Calcutta vs State of West Bengal and Ors., decided on February 10, 1986 (Para 3).

(ii) C.D. Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 9277.

5. On hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that admittedly the employee herein has already received the admitted amount of gratuity. It is for the balance amount that the order has been passed by the controlling authority.

6. Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon Section 7(7) of the payment of gratuity act and submits that there is no scope for extending the period of limitation, beyond the period as provided under the statute/Act.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not at fault for not preferring an appeal within the statutory period in view of the following pleadings made in the writ application:-

“(i) During the course of the hearings before the respondent no. 1 authority, the petitioner company authorized one of its employees to take appropriate steps to defend such application. Accordingly he was taking all necessary steps. The petitioner company has placed their submissions vide a reply and other submissions to defend the interest of the petitioner company.

(ii) To the utter shock and surprise, the petitioners received a certificate issued under section 8 of the said Act of 1972 dated February 18, 2026 issued by the respondent no. 1 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 4,03,044/- (Rupees Four Lakh Three Thousand Forty-Four Only) to the respondent no. 2 along with 10% simple interest per annum w.e.f. 31/10/2016 till the actual date of payment plus 15% compound interest per annum w.e.f. 01/12/2016 till the date of recovery.

(iii) The petitioner company further learned that the said representative did not take the appropriate steps after the said order was passed by the respondent no. 1 authority and further the said representative failed to apprise the respondent no. 1 authority of the correct factual circumstances. Due to such major lapse on behest of the said representative, the petitioner company could not prefer an appeal against the said order dated August 18, 2025, within the time limit prescribed under Section 7(7) of the Payment and Gratuity Act, 1972. It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitione