Dismissed¶41

The Management, v. the Appellate Authority

Madras HC9 Jun 2025WP(MD)/24511/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972; Section 7(7) first proviso; appeal limitation 60 days plus 60 days extension; outer limit 120 days; no power to condone delay beyond 120 days; appeal filed with 194 days' delay held barred by limitation; Appellate Authority rejection upheld; Hotel Aryaas management Tirunelveli; workman Poolraj @ Pooliah; P.G.No.45 of 2016; P.G.A.(I.A)No.1/2018; writ of certiorarified mandamus refused; Article 226; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; writ petition dismissed; settled amount usable only as defence against coercive recovery.

What did the court decide?

None - the writ petition stands dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.22220 of 2018) is closed; the prayer to quash the impugned order and remand P.G.No.45 of 2016 was refused. ¶41

The Management, Vs the Appellate Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act filed with a delay exceeding 120 days (here 194 days) can be entertained by the Appellate Authority, given that under the first proviso to Section 7(7) the authority has no power to condone delay beyond 120 days. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

Under the first proviso to Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an appeal must be filed within 60 days, extendable by a further 60 days; it must therefore be preferred within 120 days to be entertained by the Appellate Authority, which has no power to condone delay beyond 120 days. Accordingly, the Management's appeal filed after 120 days (delay of 194 days) is clearly barred by limitation, and the authority rightly dismissed the condonation application and rejected the appeal.

¶35

Key takeaways

If any amount has already been settled, that circumstance can be taken as a defence only when coercive steps are taken by the authorities for recovery; it does not warrant entertaining a time-barred appeal.obiter¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (R.Vijayakumar, J., 09.06.2025) dismissing W.P.(MD).No.24511 of 2018 filed by the management of Hotel Aryaas, Tirunelveli, which sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 to quash the Appellate Authority's order dated 10.10.2018 in P.G.A.(I.A)No.1/2018 rejecting its gratuity appeal as time-barred and to remand P.G.No.45 of 2016 to the Controlling Authority. The appeal against the original authority's order of 18.01.2017 (copy received 24.01.2017) was preferred only on 09.08.2017, with a delay of 194 days. Holding: under the first proviso to Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an appeal must be filed within 60 days, extendable by a further 60 days; it must be lodged within 120 days to be entertained, and the authority has no power to condone delay beyond 120 days. The delayed appeal was therefore clearly barred by limitation and its rejection upheld. The Court observed that any settlement of the amount can be pressed only as a defence if coercive recovery steps are subsequently taken. Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. No precedent was cited.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.24511 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.24511 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.22220 of 2018

¶7

The Management Hotel Aryaas, 67, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Road.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Appellate Authority (The Payment of Gratuity Act), The Additional Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

¶11

The Controlling Authority

¶12

(The Payment of Gratuity Act), The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli.

¶13

Poolraj @ Pooliah ... Respondents

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.24511 of 2018

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 10.10.2018 in P.G.A.(I.A)No.1/2018 and quash the same and further direct the 1^st respondent to remand the petition in P.G.No.45 of 2016 to the second respondent and further to decide the same afresh and on merits.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.D.Saravanan

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Management has filed the present Revision Petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.

¶21

The petitioner Management had suffered an order before the

¶22

original authority under the payment of gratuity Act on 18.01.2017.

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.24511 of 2018

¶26

Admittedly, they have received a copy of the order on 24.01.2017. The appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority on 09.08.2017, with a delay of 194 days.

¶27

The Appellate Authority has passed the present impugned order rejecting the appeal on the ground that the delay had crossed 120 days and that the authority does not have any power to condone the delay. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶28

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the workman has already been settled with the amount which he had prayed for, and therefore, an opportunity may be granted to argue the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

¶29

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent /workman submitted that as per Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days. The Authority has the powers to condone the delay up to another 60 days.

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.24511 of 2018

¶33

However, the present appeal having been filed with the delay of 194 days, is not maintainable. Therefore, the authorities has rightly dismissed the appeal.

¶34

I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

As per the first proviso to Section 7 (7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days and the period can be extended for further period of 60 days. Therefore, the appeal has to be preferred within a period of 120 days for being entertained by the Appellate Authority. It is also to be noted that the authority does not have any power to condone the delay beyond a period of 120 days. In such circumstances, the present appeal having been filed after 120 days, is clearly barred by limitation. The authority has rightly dismissed the condone delay application and has rejected the appeal.

¶36

It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.(MD).No.24511 of 2018

¶40

petitioner that he has settled the amount and he has also deposited the amount before the Appellate Authority for preferring the appeal. In case, if any amount has already been settled, the same can be taken as defence when any coercive steps taken by the authorities for recovery.

¶41