205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01-07-2025 THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. SUPPLY AND MARKETING FED.

LTD.

........Petitioner(s)

VERSUS K.K. SAREEN AND ORS.

........Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Vinod Polist, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, challenge is to the order passed by the respondents dated 09.01.2020, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-4 by which, appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the controlling authority as envisaged under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. It may be noticed that the respondent had approached the controlling authority for the payment of gratuity admissible to him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the controlling authority passed an order on 03.07.2018 accepting the claim of the respondent No.1.

3. As per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the appeal can be filed before the appellate authority against the order passed by the controlling authority within a period of 60 days and the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay by another 60 days, beyond which, there is no jurisdiction with the Appellate Authority to condone the delay so as to entertain the appeal on merits.

4. The order passed by the controlling authority dated 03.07.2018 was challenged by the petitioner on 06.06.2019, which was beyond 120 days and keeping in view the provisions of Section 7 of the 1972 Act which allows the filing of an appeal within a period of 60 days and condonation of delay of another 60 days, the appellate authority rejected the appeal being time barred, the said order dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure P-4) is under challenge in the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once, an application was filed for condonation of delay of 296 days to file the appeal against the order of the controlling authority dated 03.07.2018, same should have been entertained by the appellate authority and the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred dated 09.01.2020 is liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance.

7. It is conceded fact that as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the right to appeal has been given against the order passed by the controlling authority. The said appeal can be preferred within a period of 60 days of the passing of the order passed by the controlling authority. In case, there is a delay, the appellate authority has been given the power to condone the delay of another 60 days after which, there is no jurisdiction with the appellate authority to condone the delay. It is a conceded fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was filed after 289 days delay which was beyond

120 days, which could have been condoned by the Appellate Authority.

8. Further, the same question of law has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8276-2019 titled as Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle, Bhakra Beas Management Board vs. Excise and Taxation Officer, Sunder Nagar, decided on 25.10.2019, wherein, it has been held that there is no power with the appellate authority to condone the delay beyond 120 days keeping in view the provisions of the 1972 Act and any appeal filed thereafter, cannot be entertained and decided on merits. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-

“19. In Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida v.

Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida, (2008) 3 SCC 73, a question arose of condonation of delay in filing reference application to the High Court. It has been held that section 5 is not applicable. In the said case, the court has followed the decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Centra