IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 7483 of 2015 MADHYA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THR AND OTHERS Versus SMT. URMILA Appearance:

Shri Ram Krishna Upadhyay - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Devendar Kumar Rajoria - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER

1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 10.09.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972"), whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been rejected as time barred as the same was filed beyond 120 days from the date of order passed by the Controlling Authority.

2. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 31.01.2013 had awarded a sum of Rs.2,09,515/-to the respondents.

3. The petition also challenges the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order dated

31.01.2013 has been rejected.

4. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a specific objection was taken before the Controlling Authority that there has been difference in the salary slips produced by the workman and those produced by his legal heirs after his death. Despite this objection, Exclated/inflated claim made by the legal heirs of the workman was allowed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it was the specific case of the petitioners before the Controlling Authority that the services of the husband (Late Shri A.K.Pateria) of late Smt. Urmila were dispensed with w.e.f. 31.12.2004, and after a lapse of four years, the application under Section 7 of the Act of 1972 was filed by the respondent before the Controlling Authority, without there-being any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. A specific issue of limitation was also framed by the Controlling Authority, but the same has been illegally decided in favour of the petitioners vide award dated 31.01.2013 decided on 26.02.2014. It appears that after the passing of the award dated 31.01.2013 by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, an application seeking its review and recall was filed by the petitioners, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2014.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that just because there was some delay on the part of the petitioners in challenging the order dated 26.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority, they have been nonsuited by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 10.09.2015 under the garb of Section 7 (7) of the Act of 1972. He further submits that though, the appeal was preferred by the petitioners beyond the period of 120 days but, in case, the case of the petitioners is not decided on merits, the petitioners would be rendered remediless. Therefore, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in such matters.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance upon an order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in M.P. No.3085/2021, wherein it has been held that in case, an application under Section 7 of the Act of 1972 is filed beyond period of 30 days, then, in the absence of any application seeking condonation of delay, the claim of the employee could not have been considered by the Controlling Authority. He further submits that in the instant case, the application filed by the petitioners was made merely 4 years from the date of termination of his service. Accordingly, he submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/employee supports the orders