Order on Board

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.07.2023.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to remand back to the appellate authority to decide on merit.

10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.”

2. Facts in brief are that husband of respondent No. 1, namely, Shobhanath was working under the petitioner. His services were terminated by the company vide order dated 22.03.2009. The workman died on 27.11.2020 and till that date the amount of gratuity was not paid by the petitioner herein, therefore, an application was moved by the respondent No. 1, who is wife of the workman before the Controlling Authority under Rule 10(i) of Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity, and thereafter, the Controlling Authority passed an order on 17.11.2022 and directed the petitioner herein to make payment of amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 1,57,898/- with interest at the rate of 10%. The difference amount Rs. 38,441/- was also assessed by the Controlling Authority. The petitioner herein paid amount of gratuity to respondent No. 1 on 03.08.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the appellate authority according to the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972, on 14.03.2023 but difference amount Rs. 38,441/- and interest component were not deposited within prescribed period of limitation i.e. 120 days. The appellate authority vide order dated 28.07.2023 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against said order this petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that amount of gratuity assessed by the Controlling Authority was paid to the respondent No. 1 on 03.08.2020. He would contend that the difference amount and interest component were not deposited with the Controlling Authority prior to filing of appeal according to the provisions of Section 7(7) of Act of 1972 and said fact is foundation of dismissal of appeal preferred by the petitioner. He would contend that the appellate authority granted time to the petitioner to deposit the said part, and subsequently, it was deposited on 26.07.2023 through a bank draft. He would contend that as the order passed by the Controlling Authority was complied with, the appellate Authority committed error of law while dismissing the appeal.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhayay, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 would submit that the petitioner failed to deposit entire amount of gratuity assessed by the Controlling Authority before or at the time of filing appeal, therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was rightly dismissed. He would contend that according to the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972, the petitioner was required to deposit entire amount of gratuity assessed by the Controlling Authority including difference amount and interest part before expiry of period of limitation, whereas, in the present case, difference of gratuity assessed by the Controlling Authority and interest part were deposited by the petitioner after expiry of said period. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Chowaram and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 3842.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972 reads as under :-

“7(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days f