In a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an appeal as time-beced under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the High Court held that the Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory limit of 120 days and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of Appellate Authority upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 72 of 2019
Cement Corporation Of India Ltd. Through General Manager, Cement Corporation Of India Ltd., Mandhar Cement Factory, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 493111
---- Petitioner
Versus
---Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
18/03/2019
-2-
581 submitted that though the Appellate Authority do not have the power to condone the delay beyond a period of 120 days, but the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if sufficient and adequate justification has been provided for the delay caused, the same can be condoned and thus prayed for the setting aside of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and to remit the matter back for a decision on merits after condoning the delay.
-3-
such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf:
Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days.”
-4-
obtained from the same office and it was being searched in the same office and that cannot be a ground for the delay in the filing of the appeal.
-5-
“(19) The issue involved in the present case is identical though in the context of a different Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the appeal under Section 7(7) of the PG Act has to be filed within sixty days and at best, the Appellate Authority can condone the delay of further sixty days i.e. total 120 days in all.
(20) In those cases where the appeals have been filed beyond 120 days, the delay cannot be condoned by the Appellate Authority.
(21) As far as present cases are concerned, these were disposed of by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that in another judgment rendered in W.P. (L) No. 178/2013 (State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs. Netram Sahu & Anr.), in which the Court had held that period of service rendered as daily wages will not be counted for any purpose under the PG Act. Judgment passed by learned Single Judge in Netram Sahu's case was upheld by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 240/2014 and against which SLP filed by the workmen is pending before the Apex Court.
(22) It appears that attention of the learned Single Judge was not brought to the fact that the appellate authority could not condone the delay beyond 120 days and, therefore, the Writ Court passed an order sending the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. In case the appellate authority itself had no jurisdiction to condone the delay, then the writ court could not have also condoned the delay.
(23) Therefore, the only option for us is to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge where the direction has been given to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits, therefore, it is directed that the Appellate Authority shall examine each of the cases and where the delay is sixty days or less then the delay shall be deemed to be condoned. However, where the delay is more than sixty days, since the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond that period, it shall dismiss the appeal as time barred.”
-6-
Sumit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act has power to condone delay beyond 120 days.
Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can condone delay barred by statutory limitation.
Whether the impugned order dismissing appeal as time barred is perverse or illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.S.R.T.C., through Divisional Controller v. Anwarhusain Mamhadbhai KadriDistinguished¶18
G.S.R.T.C., through Divisional Controller v. Anwarhusain Mamhadbhai Kadri, 2009(121) FLR 581
Kirtan Ram Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Relied on¶42
Kirtan Ram Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WA No. 349/2016
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Cement Corporation Of India Ltd. Through General Manager, Cement Corporation Of India Ltd., Mandhar Cement Factory, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
Shri Ganeshu Ram Sahu
Shri G.P. Kashyap Contractor
Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972
Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
