Orissa High Court
Neelachal Ispat Nigam vs The Appellate Authority on 28 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.36798 of 2023
Neelachal Ispat Nigam
Ltd., Jajpur .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
The Appellate Authority
under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 &
Joint Labour
Commissioner, BBSR and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 28.07.2025
19. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dated 18.10.2023, so passed by the
Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and
Joint Labour Commissioner (Headquarter), Bhubaneswar in
PG Appeal No.06 of 2023. Vide the said order, appeal
preferred by the petitioner against order dated 06.04.2017
and further order passed in Review on 14.07.2017 was not
entertained on the ground of delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
Original Authority when passed an order in P.G. Case No.3
// 2 //
of 2016 under Annexure-3 by holding the petitioner liable
to pay a sum of Rs.1,94,542/- to the present O.P. No.3
along with interest from the date of superannuation till the
date of actual payment, petitioner filed the Review against
the said order.
4.1. It is contended that review so filed was dismissed vide
order dated 30.06.2017 so communicated vide
Memorandum No.4738 dated 14.07.2017 under Annexure-
5. It is contended that after such dismissal of the Review
Application vide order dated 30.06.2017, petitioner
challenging the same, approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.20266 of 2017. But this Court taking into
account the order passed by this Court on 17.02.2023 in
Review Petition No.233 of 2017 and the submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will pursue
the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate
Authority, the Writ Petition so filed was dismissed vide
order dated 28.03.2023 under Annexure-7.
4.2. It is contended that since after dismissal of the Review
vide order dated 14.07.2014, the Writ Petition was not only
entertained but also was kept pending till it was dismissed
with the observation so indicated in Para-4 of order dated
28.03.2023, the appellate authority could not have rejected
the appeal on the ground of delay. Order dated 28.03.2023
so passed in W.P.(C) No.20266 of 2017 reads as follows:-
"The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
// 3 //
2. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, so also Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned Counsel
for the O.P. No.3 are present.
3. Both learned Counsel for the Parties have filed
their respective Memos, enclosing thereto photocopy
of the judgment dated 17th February, 2023 passed
in RVWPET No.233 of 2017.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in
addition to filing the said Memo dated 28th March,
2023, prays for withdrawal of the Writ Petition with
liberty to pursue the Appeal preferred by the
Petitioner-Management before the Appellate Authority
under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
5. In view of the said prayer of Mr. Mishra, Writ
Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Needless to mention here that in view of the Order
passed in RVWPET No.233 of 2017, no further liberty
is required to be ordered in this Writ Petition, as
prayed for.
7. Interim Order dated 1st November, 2017 stands
vacated."
4.3. It is accordingly contended that since the appeal has
been dismissed on the ground of delay only vide the
impugned order dated 18.10.2023, the same is not
sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that the
gratuity amount so assessed by the Original authority
under Annexure-3 has already been deposited and
withdrawn by O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.3 is only entitled to get
the interest which will be around Rs.5 lakhs.
5. Mr. S.B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for O.P.
No.3 on the other hand contended that since after dismissal
of the Review Petition, petitioner approached a wrong forum
by filing W.P.(C) No.20266 of 2017, which was dismissed on
28.03.2023, the appeal since was filed beyond the period of
// 4 //
limitation so prescribed under the Act, the same has rightly
not been entertained by the Appellate Authority.
5.1. It is contended that benefit of the provisions
contained under Section-14 of the Limitation Act, cannot be
taken into consideration to the facts and circumstances of
the present case. It is however not disputed that original
gratuity amount so decided by the authority, has been
received by O.P. No.3 in the meantime, save and except the
interest as due and admissible.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that
the original authority when held the petitioner liable to pay
a sum of Rs.1,94,542/- along with interest vide order dated
06.04.2017, petitioner challenging the said order, filed the
Review Petition. But the said Review Petition was dismissed
vide order dated 30.06.2017 under Annexure-5. Against
such order passed on 30.06.2017, petitioner approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20266 of 2017. As found
from Annexure-7, the said Writ Petition was dismissed
taking into account the nature of order passed by this
Court in Review Petition No.233 of 2017 and the liberty
prayed for. This Court after going through the order dated
28.03.2023, finds that while dismissing the Writ Petition,
petitioner was permitted to pursue his appeal so filed
against the order passed on 06.04.2017.
6.1. Taking into account the nature of order passed by
this Court on 28.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.20266 of 2017, it is
// 5 //
the view of this Court that the Appellate Authority could not
have dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order
dated 18.10.2023 so passed by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-
15. While quashing the same and taking into account the
fact that original gratuity amount has already been
deposited and withdrawn in the meantime by O.P. No.3,
this Court directs the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5
lakhs through Bank Guarantee towards interest as will be
due to O.P. No.3.
6.2. It is however observed that deposit of the said
amount through Bank Guarantee, shall be subject to final
outcome of the appeal. The Appellate Authority is directed
to take up the appeal and decide the same on merit by
giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well
as O.P. No.3. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to dispose of the
appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of
October, 2025. In order to avoid delay, petitioner as well as
O.P. No.3 are directed to appear before O.P. No.1 on
11.08.2025.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Signature NotBasudev
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Date: 31-Jul-2025 11:45:24
