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. 7482 of 2015 MADHYA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THR AND OTHERS Versus HARCHARAN LAL SHAKYA Appearance:

Shri Ram Krishna Upadhyay - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Narottam Sharma - 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 28.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority 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 petition also challenges the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby sum of Rs.73,034/- has been awarded to the respondent.

3. 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 respondent was dispensed with w.e.f. 02.05.2000, and after 12 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.

4. 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 28.02.2014 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.

5. 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 after 12 years from the date of termination of his service. Accordingly, he submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/employee supports the orders impugned in the instant writ petition and places reliance upon an order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.1961/2016 to contend that the delay beyond the period of 120 days in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, in view of Section 7 (7) of the Act of 1972 cannot be enlarged or condoned. Accordingly, he submits that since the appeal was time barred, the petitioners cannot be permitted to argue the case on merits in the instant writ petition.

7. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The fact that the appeal against the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was not preferred by the petitioners before the appellate authority within 120 days and the same was preferred