The lack of an upper time limit for gratuity applications allows for delay condonation if adequate cause is demonstrated.

JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972 (in short ‘the 1972 Act’) setting aside Ext.P4 order of the Original Authority and directing that the claim filed by the 3^rd respondent for payment of gratuity be adjudicated on merits. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the application filed by the 3^rd respondent for payment of gratuity was not filed within the time specified in Rule 10 of the Kerala Payment of Gratuity Rules , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Rules’). It is contended that if at all the application was to be entertained beyond the time specified in Rule 10(1) of the State Rules, the application should have been accompanied by a petition for condonation of delay stating reasons as to why the application should be considered by the Controlling Authority. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority without giving any reason, proceeded to direct the Controlling Authority to consider the application filed by the 3^rd respondent, in accordance with the law.

2. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would submit that a reading of Ext.P6 order of the Appellate Authority will show that the Appellate Authority had found that the alleged period of delay was at a time when the country was facing the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority has only directed that on the 3^rd respondent filing an application for condonation of delay, the Controlling Authority shall consider the matter afresh. It is submitted that there is no illegality or irrationality in the order of the Appellate Authority warranting interference at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and on a perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority, I am of the view that there is no illegality or irrationality in the order of the Appellate Authority warranting interference at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that under the provisions of the Rule 10(1) of the State Rules, the application had to be filed within a period of 90 days from the date of resignation, retirement or termination of employment. It is clear from a reading of Rule 10 of the State Rules that there is no upper time limit within which an application for payment of gratuity must be made before the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority has the discretion to condone delay provided sufficient cause is shown. The facts of this case does not indicate that there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the 3^rd respondent in filing an application for determination of the gratuity payable to her. Therefore, I find that the Appellate Authority has not committed any error in directing that on an application for condonation of delay being filed, the Controlling Authority shall decide the application, in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the 3^rd respondent were to file an application for condonation of delay in terms of the proviso to Rule 10(1)(iii) of the State Rules before the Controlling Authority [if not already filed], the Controlling Authority shall take up the application and dispose the same, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides, without undue delay.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-