The Supreme Court's directive on limitation during the pandemic applies, allowing for the reconsideration of appeals despite delays caused by Covid-19.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. The petitioner, Senior Regional Manager of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, challenges the impugned order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Labour, functioning as the Ap- pellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 . By the said or- der, the appeals filed against two orders of the Controlling Authority were returned on the grounds that there was a four-day delay in filing and that the mandatory certificate of deposit had not been enclosed. The original orders, passed in P.G. Nos. 56 and 58 of 2018, had directed payment of additional gratuity of Rs.2,00,595/- and Rs. 1,93,551/- respectively to two former sea- sonal watchmen, K. Venkatachalam and S. Jaya Kannu, along with 10% in- terest, computed based on their total service tenure and not limited to sea- sonal engagements.

3. On 08.12.2021, notice was ordered to the respondents in both writ pe- titions. Thereafter, the cases were listed before the Lok Adalat and subse- quently reposted before the Court, where they were adjourned from time to time.

4. As regards the factual background, the third respondents—having been engaged as seasonal employees on consolidated wages—were paid gratuity upon retirement under Section 4(1) of the Act, calculated solely for their seasonal service. Though they initially accepted the payments of Rs.67,248/- and Rs. 81,637/- respectively, they later filed claims seeking re- calculation for their entire period of engagement. The Controlling Authority condoned the delay of two years in filing and passed the impugned orders in February 2020 awarding enhanced gratuity.

5. The petitioner submits that the delay in preferring the appeals arose due to the Covid-19 lockdown and administrative disruptions from 24.03.2020 onwards, which impeded the timely procurement of the deposit certificate. Although the gratuity amounts were deposited on 02.06.2020 & 09.07.2020 respectively, the certificates could not be obtained promptly. It is further contended that the Appellate Authority failed to apply the general di- rections of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 from the computation of limitation in all judicial proceedings. Emphasising that no prejudice would be caused to the third re- spondents if the appeals were considered on merits, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of return and prays for remand of the appeals for fresh adju- dication including a prayer to restrain disbursement of the deposited amounts pending disposal.

6. The impugned appeals were preferred against the orders of the Controlling Authority dated 20.02.2020 & 11.02.2020 respectively, which were admittedly received by the petitioner on 10.03.2020 & 06.03.2020 respectively. The appeals were filed on 21.06.2020 & 09.07.2020 respectively — thus, 103 & 125 days after receipt of the orders. Under the scheme of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 , Section 7(7) requires that an appeal be filed within 60 days, and Section 7(8) permits a further extension of up to 60 additional days upon sufficient cause being shown, thereby allowing a maximum of 120 days from the date of receipt of the order.

7. On this count, the appeal filed against the order dated 11.02.2020 in W.P.No.25693 of 2021 was filed with a delay of 5 days beyond the outer limit of 120 days. If the Appellate Authority considered only 124 days—per- haps by excluding either the date of receipt or the date of filing—it may have computed the excess as 124 – 120 = 4 days, thus characterizing the de- lay as one of four days. On the other hand, in W.P.No.25691 of 2021, the appeal filed against the order dated 20.02.2020 was filed well within the outer limit of 120 days. Hence, the impugned order passed in W.P.No.25691 of 2021 rejecting the appeal filed on the ground of four days delay is unsus- tainable as the appeal has been filed within the outer limit and the matter shall be remanded back to the appellate authority for fresh considerati