WPMS/797/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 1693 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
              AT NAINITAL
          ON THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

                     BEFORE:

  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


        Writ Petition (M/S) No.797 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
                                      .....Petitioner
AND:

  Babu Ram Kashyap                 .....Respondent
                         With
        Writ Petition (M/S) No.798 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
                                      .....Petitioner

AND:

  Rakesh Kumar Bhatnagar           .....Respondent
                         With

        Writ Petition (M/S) No.799 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
                                      .....Petitioner

AND:
  Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal            .....Respondent
                         With

        Writ Petition (M/S) No.800 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
                                      .....Petitioner

AND:

  Ghanshyam Singh Dhami            .....Respondent
                                  2




                                 With

          Writ Petition (M/S) No.801 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
                                      .....Petitioner

AND:

  Om Pal Singh                                  .....Respondent
                                 With

          Writ Petition (M/S) No.803 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
                                      .....Petitioner
AND:

  Laxmi Kant Sharma                             .....Respondent

                                 With

          Writ Petition (M/S) No.804 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
                                      .....Petitioner

AND:

  Jagat Ram                                     .....Respondent
                                 With

          Writ Petition (M/S) No.805 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)
                                      .....Petitioner
  (By Mr. Siddhartha Sah & Mr. Sanjay Gaur, Advocates)




AND:

  Rajendra Singh Rawat                          .....Respondent
  (By Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate)
                                    3




                             JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment. However, for sake of brevity facts of WPMS No. 797 of 2021 are being considered.

3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by Appellate Authority/Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun under Section 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By the said order, petitioner's appeal filed on 29.01.2021 against the order of Controlling Authority, has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

4. It transpires that respondent claimed gratuity by filing an application under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. The said application was allowed and the Controlling Authority, vide order dated 28.02.2020, directed for payment of gratuity to the respondent. The order passed by the Controlling Authority was communicated to the petitioner on 03.07.2020.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, petitioner filed an appeal

under Section 7 (7) of the Act before the Appellate Authority in the month of January, 2021. The said appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay, by holding that the limitation for filing appeal expired in the month of November, 2020, therefore, the appeal cannot be entertained at this belated stage. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, (in Re: cognizance for extension of limitation). By the said order, it was provided that the period of limitation in all proceedings shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders, in view of the situation arising due to Covid-19 virus. Thereafter, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 08.03.2021. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

"2.1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

2.2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply."

7. Learned counsel for respondent very fairly submits that petitioner is entitled to benefit of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020.

8. This Court is also of the opinion that learned Appellate Authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal filed by the petitioner deserved to be heard and decided on merits.

9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petitions stand allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for decision on petitioner's appeal on merits, as early as possible; but, not later than four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Rajni