Order on Board

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief(s) :

“i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records, pertaining to order dated 25/04/2023 passed by the Appellate Authority and Deputy Labour Commissioner in Appeal Case No. /49/P.G.A./2022 and order dated 30/03/2022 passed by the Court of Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg (CG) in Gratuity Case No. /34/P.G.A./2021.

ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/ directions, order/orders, holding that the impugned order dated 25/04/2023 passed by the Appellate Authority and Deputy Labour Commissioner in Appeal Case No. /49/P.G.A./2022 and order dated 30/03/2022 passed by the Court of Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg (CG) in Gratuity Case No. /34/P.G.A./2021 is bad in law, arbitrary, therefore it may kindly be set aside/quashed. &

iii. Cost of the petition be allowed.

iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts in brief are that at the relevant time, the respondent/workman was engaged as daily-wage employee on the post of Copyist in the Irrigation Department. His services were regularized on the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 06.04.1990. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. The petitioner moved an application before the Controlling Authority for grant of Gratuity on the ground that he worked with the Department for long 37 years. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 30.03.2022 directed the department to make payment of Gratuity of Rs.8,65,160/- to the respondent/workman. The petitioners/State herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority with a delay of 251 days. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.04.2023 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay caused in filing appeal.

3. Mr. Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners/State would argue that sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners herein and therefore, the Appellate Authority should have entertained the appeal preferred by the petitioners. He would further submit that the Controlling Authority committed error of law while taking into consideration period of service rendered by the respondent/Workman as daily wage employee and therefore, order is bad in law. He would pray to allow this petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/workman would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 120 days and therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was rightly dismissed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.349 of 2016 and other connected matters in the matter of Kirtan Ram Thakur Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others, reported in 2008(7) SCC 169.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. It is a well-settled principle of law that delay of more than 120 days in filing appeal before the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be condoned and the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.

7. Taking into consideration the facts stated-above and the law laid down in above-referred matters, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.