State Of Gujarat vs Manglubha Ramsang Chudasma
2023 Latest Caselaw 585 Guj

       C/LPA/21/2023                                     ORDER DATED: 19/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.                21 of 2023

        In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 710 of 2021
                             With
         CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
           In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 21 of 2023
==========================================================
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
                                   Versus
                         MANGLUBHA RAMSANG CHUDASMA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                               Date : 19/01/2023

                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned Asst. Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the appellant State.

2. Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2021 of learned Single Judge.

2.1 By the said order, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. In the original Special Civil Application, the petitioner State had challenged order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity

C/LPA/21/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2023

Act, 1972 in Gratuity Appeal No. 105 of 2019. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal before it on the the ground that was beyond the period of limitation.

3. Learned Single Judge while confirming the order of the appellate authority, in not entertaining the appeal before it on the ground of limitation, noticed the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Gratuity Act"). Under the said provision, time limit is provided for preferring appeal against the order of controlling authority under sub-section (4) of Section 7. The appeal before the appellate authority would lie within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Further 60 days is contemplated as grace within which further time also appeal could be filed provided sufficient cause exist.

3.1 For ready reference, sub-section (7) of section 7 is reproduced herein,

"(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub- section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the 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

C/LPA/21/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2023

within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days:

Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub- section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount."

3.2 Thus, the outer limit to file appeal is 120 days. No power available to extend the period of limitation prescribed in special law. The Gratuity Act is a special law. Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, it is in total 120 days beyond which period, the appeal is not competent and could not have been filed.

3.3 The proposition in law is settled by this court in Petlad Municipality Vs. Jadav Ramabhai Bhaijibhai [(2014) 3 GLR 2065], which decision came to be extensively relied by the learned Single Judge. Same view has been taken in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Sunderben Chhanabhai Baraiya [2011 (5) GLR 3681], as also in Kelavani Trust Vadodara Vs. Bharatiben D. Shah [2015 (1) LLJ 679].

3.4 In relation to similar provision under the Electricity Act, 2003, the law on the same lines is settled, namely, that the outer limit is straitjacket and no further time beyond outer limit of limitation

C/LPA/21/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2023

could be availed for the purpose of preferring appeal. Learned Single Judge has referred to the said decision also.

3.5 It may be stated that in another decision of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16064 of 2020 decided by the learned Single Judge on the same day which involved identical point. The said decision was carried in Letters Patent Appeal No. 284 of 2022, which came to be confirmed.

4. The order of the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, impugned before the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application was eminently legal.

5. Learned Single committed no error in confirming the same and dismissing the Special Civil Application.

6. The challenge to order of learned Single Judge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is not tenable in law.

7. The Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is summarily dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI