R S Satyanarayana Rao vs The Karnataka Power
2021 Latest Caselaw 2482 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2482 Kant
Judgement Date : 29 June, 2021

Karnataka High Court

R S Satyanarayana Rao vs The Karnataka Power on 29 June, 2021

Author: Alok Aradhe Chandangoudar

                            1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR


             W.A. NO.2946 OF 2014 (L-PG)
                         IN
            W.P.Nos.39137-38/2014 (L-PG)

BETWEEN:

R.S. SATYANARAYANA RAO
S/O LATE R.N. SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.18
VASUKI, 9TH MAIN
SREENIDHI LAYOUT,
KONANAKUNTE
BANGALORE-560062.
                                      ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI K, ADV., FOR
    SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV.,)


AND:

1.   THE KARNATAKA POWER
     TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,
     KAVERY BHAVAN
     BANGALORE-09
     REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.
                               2




2.   THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
     OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER
     BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560076.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS. HARSHITA, ADV., FOR
    SRI. HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADV., FOR R1
    SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R2)
                            ---

     THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NOs.39137-138/2014 DATED 28.10.2014.
     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,              THIS    DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Smt.Rashmi K., learned counsel for the appellant.

Miss Harshita, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned Additional Government

Advocate for the respondent No.2.

In this intra Court appeal preferred under Section 4 of

the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, appellant has assailed

the validity of the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the

learned Single Judge by which, the writ petition preferred by

the respondent has been disposed of, with liberty to the

respondent to pursue the remedy of appeal prescribed under

Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. When the matter was taken up today, learned

counsel for the parties jointly submitted that in pursuance of

the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the learned Single

Judge, the respondent has already field an appeal before the

Appellate Authority. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to

refer to the relevant extract of Section 7(7) of the Act which

reads as under:

"(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 within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days."

Thus, it is evident that an appeal can be filed within a

period of 60 days and delay of further 60 days in filing the

appeal can be condoned by the Appellate Authority.

3. Since the appeal is already pending before the

Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Act, therefore,

the issue whether or not the appeal is within the limitation

has to be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority under the

Act. Therefore, the direction contained in the order dated

28.10.2014 that an appeal preferred by the appellant shall be

considered as within limitation by the Appellate Authority, is

set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the

issue whether or not the appeal is within limitation, after