Writ petition challenging an order that rejected an appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act for limitation. The High Court dismissed the plea, ruling that the Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 120 days.
The writ petition challenging the order dismissing the appeal for being time-barred is dismissed.
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. 75 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-
Controller v. Anwarhusain Mamhadbhai Kadri ” 2009(121) FLR 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-
order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or 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-
the records and the documents as also the approvals were to be 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
-6-
beyond that period, it shall dismiss the appeal as time barred.”
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge
Sumit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has the jurisdiction to condone a delay of filing an appeal beyond 120 days.
Whether the delay caused by searching records and obtaining internal approvals constitutes sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the appeal for being time barred is perverse or contrary to law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.S.R.T.C. v. Anwarhusain Mamhadbhai KadriReferred¶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.Followed¶43
Kirtan Ram Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. WA No. 349/2016
WPL No. 21/2015Referred¶51
WPL No. 21/2015
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Cement Corporation Of India Ltd.
Shri Jaynarayan Dewangan
Shri G. P. Kashyap Contractor
Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
Controlling Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
