Dismissed¶49

The Managing Dirctor v. the Appellate Authority

Madras HC30 Jun 2026WP/39556/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Section 7(7) appeal limitation 60 days extendable to maximum 120 days; refusal to entertain time-barred gratuity appeal upheld; appeal dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit; Controlling Authority, Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Salem; Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore; writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd; A.Thi.Mu.Nos.2565 and 2566 of 2023; P.G.Nos.105/2022, 106/2022, 2/2023 and 125/2022; writ petitions dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petitions were dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. ¶49

The Managing Dirctor Vs the Appellate Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petitions were dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeals filed before the Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of Labour could be entertained despite being barred by limitation under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (60 days, extendable by a further 60 days to a total of 120 days). +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

Under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an appeal must be preferred within 60 days from receipt of the order, and further time can be extended only by a period of 60 days, making a total of 120 days.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The period of limitation for preferring the appeal cannot be extended beyond 120 days.

¶42

Key takeaways

There is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of Labour refusing to entertain the appeal on the grounds of limitation.ratio¶43
Where the monetary pre-deposit to entertain the appeal was not made, the appeal cannot be entertained, and the forum below rightly dismissed such appeals.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition Nos.39556, 39557, 39560 and 39562 of 2024 (common order), High Court of Judicature at Madras, K. Surender J., decided 30/6/2026. The Management of Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd sought certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Controlling Authority's orders in P.G.No.105 of 2022 (dated 7/3/2023), P.G.No.106 of 2022 (dated 21/2/2023), P.G.No.2 of 2023 (dated 7/3/2023) and P.G.No.125 of 2022 (dated 21/2/2023), and the Appellate Authority's orders in A.Thi.Mu.Nos.2565 and 2566 of 2023 (dated 6/7/2023). Held: under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 an appeal must be preferred within 60 days, extendable by a further 60 days only (total 120 days); limitation cannot be extended beyond 120 days, and appeals filed beyond that period, or without the required pre-deposit, cannot be entertained. Finding no infirmity in the Appellate Authority's refusal to entertain the appeals on the ground of limitation, the Court dismissed the writ petitions without costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

¶1

W.P.No.39556 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30/6/2026

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

Writ Petition Nos.39556, 39557, 39560 and 39562 of 2024

¶7

a n d

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.42836, 42838, 42840, 42841, 42844, 42846, 42848 and 42850 of 2024

¶9

The Management Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd Jerthalav Post, Palacode Taluk Dharmapuri District 636 808. … Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Coimbatore 18.

¶12

The Controlling Authority

¶13

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour Salem.

¶14

P. Mariappan … Third respondent in W.P.No.39556 of 2024

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.39556 of 2024

¶18

N. Murugesan … Third respondent in W.P.No.39557 of 2024 C. Periyavan … Third respondent in W.P.No.39560 of 2024 M.Perumal … Third respondent in W.P.No.39562 of 2024

¶19

Prayer in W.P.No.39556 of 2024: Petition filed under Article 226

¶20

of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 6/7/2023 passed in A.Thi.Mu.No.2565 and 2566/2023 on the file of the first respondent and the order dated 7/3/2023 passed in P.G.No.105 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

¶21

Prayer in W.P.No.39557 of 2024: Petition filed under Article 226

¶22

of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 6/7/2023 passed in A.Thi.Mu.No.2566/2023, 2565/2023 on the file of the first respondent and the order dated 21/2/2023 passed in P.G.No.106 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.39556 of 2024 Prayer in W.P.No.39560 of 2024: Petition filed under Article 226

¶26

of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 6/7/2023 passed in A.Thi.Mu.Nos.2565/2023, 2566/2023 on the file of the first respondent and the order dated 7/3/2023 passed in P.G.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

¶27

Prayer in W.P.No.39562 of 2024: Petition filed under Article 226

¶28

of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to

¶29

call for the records relating to the order dated 6/7/2023 passed in A.Thi.Mu.Nos.2565/2023 and 2566/2023 on the file of the first respondent and the order dated 21/2/2023 passed in P.G.No.125 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

¶30

For petitioner ... Mr.K.Balaramesh (in all the petitions) For respondents ... Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy Government Counsel for R.R.1 and 2 For R.3 - No appearance (W.P.Nos.39556 and 39560 of 2024)

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.39556 of 2024

¶34

Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan for R.3 (W.P.Nos.39557 and 39562 of 2024)

¶35

¶36

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶37

Since the issues involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the

¶38

same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶39

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 6/7/2023 passed by the first respondent in the respective Writ Petitions vide A.Thi.Mu.Nos. 2565/2023, 2566/2023 and 2565/2023, 2565/2023 and 2566/2023, 2565/2023 and 2566/2023, as well as the orders passed by the second respondent in the respective Writ Petitions in P.G. Nos. 105/2022, 106/2022, 2 of 2023 and 125 of 2022 vide orders dated 7/3/2023, 106 of 2022, 2 of 2023 and 125 of 2022, respectively.

¶40

The grievance of the petitioner is that although an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority / Additional Commissioner of Labour, the 4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.39556 of 2024 said authority refused to entertain it on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.As per Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, any person aggrieved by an order under sub section (4) may, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, prefer an appeal. Further time can be extended only for a period of 60 days, making it a total of 120 days. In view of the said provision, the question of extending the period of limitation beyond 120 days does not arise.

¶43

Even in cases where, the monetary payment of pre-deposit to entertain the appeal was not made, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non payment of pre-deposit. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority / Additional Commissioner of Labour in refusing to entertain the appeal on the grounds of limitation. Under both circumstances wherein appeal is filed beyond 120 days or pre-deposit to entertain the appeal is not made, such appeals cannot be entertained and rightly dismissed by the forum below.

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

W.P.No.39556 of 2024

K.SURENDER, J

mvs.

The Writ Petitions are dismissed . No costs. Consequently,

¶50

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶51

( K.SURENDER,J) 30^th June, 2026

¶52

mvs.

¶53

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶54

¶55

The Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Coimbatore 18.

¶56

The Controlling Authority

¶57

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour Salem.

¶58

Writ Petition Nos.39556, 39557, 39560 and 39562 of 2024

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 6/7/2023 passed by the first respondent (Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of Labour) in A.Thi.Mu.Nos.2565/2023 and 2566/2023 refusing to entertain the petitioner's appeals, together with the orders of the second respondent (Controlling Authority) in P.G.No.105 of 2022 (dated 7/3/2023), P.G.No.106 of 2022 (dated 21/2/2023), P.G.No.2 of 2023 (dated 7/3/2023) and P.G.No.125 of 2022 (dated 21/2/2023), sought to be quashed by writs of certiorari under Article 226.¶39
First respondent: Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Coimbatore; Second respondent: Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Office of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Salem. · 6/7/2023 (first respondent); 7/3/2023 and 21/2/2023 (second respondent)
Prior proceeding
The Controlling Authority (second respondent) passed the order dated 7/3/2023 in P.G.No.105 of 2022, challenged in W.P.No.39556 of 2024.¶20
Prior proceeding
The Controlling Authority (second respondent) passed the order dated 21/2/2023 in P.G.No.106 of 2022, challenged in W.P.No.39557 of 2024.¶22
Prior proceeding
The Controlling Authority (second respondent) passed the order dated 7/3/2023 in P.G.No.2 of 2023, challenged in W.P.No.39560 of 2024.¶26
Prior proceeding
The Controlling Authority (second respondent) passed the order dated 21/2/2023 in P.G.No.125 of 2022, challenged in W.P.No.39562 of 2024.¶29
Prior proceeding
The petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of Labour (A.Thi.Mu.Nos.2565/2023 and 2566/2023); the authority refused to entertain them as barred by limitation under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.¶42
Prior proceeding
In matters where the monetary pre-deposit to entertain the appeal was not paid, the appeal was dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit; the Court endorsed that dismissal.¶43

The Managing Dirctor v. the Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Dirctor v. the Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management, Vs C Nallathambi

Maruthamalai Vs The District collector

The Management of Vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

The Managing Director Vs the Appellate Authority / Additional Commissioner of Labour

Mr. K. Jeyakumar Vs the Employees Provident fund organisation

V.Rajasekaran Vs The Sub Registrar