2026:CGHC:2613 Digitally signed by NAFR ARPAN ARPAN SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:

2026.01.21

11:41:29 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 158 of 2025 Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan G.E.Road Telibandh Raipur District - Raipur Chhatisgarh Present Office At Sector- 24, Kayabanda, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - Shankar Lal Verma S/o Shri Shyam Lal Verma R/o Gram Purani Basti, Ramayan Chowk, Ward No. 18, Nevra Tehsil Tilda District - Raipur Chhatisgarh.

2 - The Controlling Authority Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Balodabazar -

District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Appellate Authority Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Office Of The Labour Commissioner Indrawati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District -

Raipur Chhatisgarh.

... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate appears along with Mr.

Abhishek Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput Judge

Order on Board

15.01.2026

1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 03.06.2025 passed in Appeal Case No.05/PGA/2024 by the Appellate Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indiravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur C.G. (for short appellate authority) By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7(VII) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short PG Act), is rejected holding it to be barred by limitation.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.1 who was an employee of the petitioner filed an application under Section 4 read with Section 7 of PG Act before the Court of Controlling Authority Payment of Wages Act, 1972 and Labour Officer Balodbazar District Balodabazar (C.G.) (for short controlling authority). That application was registered as Gratuity Case No.466/PGA/2023. Vide an order dated 14.09.2023 his application was allowed by the controlling authority and assessed the amount of gratuity to Rs.8,42,222/- and as amount of Rs. 3,17,871/- was already paid by the petitioner to the respondent NO.1, remaining amount of Rs.5,24,351/- along with interest were directed to be paid respondent No.1 within a period of 30 days. He further submits that though the impugned order was passed on 14.09.2023 ,however, the same was received by the petitioner on 20.10.2023 which is also reflected from the receipt in the order dated 14.09.2023 Annexure-P/2. He submits that thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7(VII) of the P.G. Act before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was filed on 01.02.2024. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal holding it to be barred by limitation. He further submits that the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 7(VII) of the PG Act is 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He read over the provisions contained in Section 7(VII) of the PG Act. He submits that the Appellate Authority is also empowered to further condone the delay up to 60 days from the date of expiry of the limitation, thus, an appeal could be filed within 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by the controlling authority. He further submits that as the copy of the order of the controlling authority was received by the petitioner on 20.10.2023 and the period of limitation of 60 days expired on 19th December, 2023. Thereafter, the appellate authority was empowered to condone a delay up to 60 days, i.e. up to 17th February, 2024. The appeal before the Appellate Authority was filed on 1st February, 2024 as such, there was a delay of only 53 days, which is within the permissible jurisdiction of the appellate authority for condonation of delay. The learned Appellate Authority committed a manifest error of law in holdi