While analyzing the appeal provision under section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that there is a period of sixty days after the order given for appeal and after that with sufficient cause, the appeal can be filed in the next extra sixty days, but later than these extra sixty days, no appeal can be filed.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal has been filed by the state against the impugned order of the Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority dated 20.11.2020. The impugned order was filed under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner State against the order dated 10.10.2019 was dismissed. The appeal was preferred after 279 days from the date of receiving the copy of the order by the petitioners-state.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court noted Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which talks about the appeal procedure for the said statute. It was then noted that under this provision, an appeal can be entertained by the Appellate Authority after the expiry of the initial period of limitation of sixty days but only with the extension of further sixty days.
These further sixty days are available to the appellant if they satisfy the appellate authority that they were prevented from filing an appeal within the time by sufficient cause and after this extra sixty days, there is no provision for condonation of delay. It was accordingly concluded by the court that the appellate authority has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay beyond the extended period of sixty days. Then the court mentioned the case of State of H.P. & another Vs. Kaul Singh, where the same was concluded by the Supreme Court.
The Decision of the Court:
No merit was found in the petition and accordingly, it was dismissed.
Case Title: The Engineer-in-Chief & Another v. Sheela Devi
Coram: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur; Justice Sushil Kukreja
Case No.: CWP No. 8406 of 2021
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
