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

th

ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 38857 of 2025 MP MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.

Versus VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anil Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ravi Bhargava - Advocate for respondent No.1 on caveat.

Shri Dileep Awasthi - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER Heard on the question of admission.

The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, whereby interest of Rs.5,75,981/- has been awarded to respondent No.1 on the ground of delay in payment of gratuity.

2. Petition also challenges the order dated 07.08.2025 (Annexure-P/2)

passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.09.2024 has been dismissed on the ground that, in view of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the delay beyond the period of 120 days cannot be condoned.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since respondent No.1 was facing criminal trial, therefore, the gratuity payable to him was withheld, and after his acquittal on 29.07.2022, the payment of gratuity due to the petitioner was made on 15.04.2024. He submits that on account of incorrect advice, the petitioner had earlier challenged the order dated 30.09.2024 before this Court in W.P. No.35694/2024, which came to be dismissed on 16.12.2024 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, with liberty to avail such remedy.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant thereto, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority, which has been rejected as barred by limitation. He submits that the petitioner was entitled for exclusion of the period spent before this Court in W.P. No.35694/2024 and the dismissal of the appeal on limitation has rendered the petitioner remediless against the order dated 30.09.2024. Accordingly, it is urged that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and the appellate authority be directed to decide the appeal on merits.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 appearing on caveat, opposes the petition and places reliance on the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jabalpur in W.P. No.11936/2016, wherein an identical writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that in terms of provisions contained in Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, delay beyond the period of 120 days cannot be condoned. It is thus submitted that the issue already stands answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and therefore, the instant writ petition also deserves to be dismissed.

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

7. The fact that the appeal against the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was not preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority within 120 days and the same was preferred after a delay of 197 days, is not disputed. It is also not the case of the petitioner that a copy of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was not received by it. On the contrary, the perusal of the order clearly indicates that the said order is bi-parte order.

8. The effect and purport of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in relation to filing an appeal before the appellate authority beyond the period of 120 days, has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.T.I. Logistic Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramkumar Gupta, in W.P. No.11936/2016, wherein, in paragraph Nos.8 to

11, it has been held as under:

"8. So far as the challenge to