Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

WPMS/2539/2023
2024 Latest Caselaw 2535 UK

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2535 UK
Judgement Date : 5 November, 2024

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2539/2023 on 5 November, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                   2024:UHC:8147
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPMS No. 2539 of 2023
                               with
                               WPMS No. 2540 of 2023
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.

                                    Mr. Tapan          Singh,   Advocate           for
                               petitioner.

                               2. Mr.     Sachin    Kumar     Sharma,
                               Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S.K. Pal,
                               Advocate for the respondent.

3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2539 of 2023 alone are being considered and discussed.

4. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner gives up the prayer, as made in relief clause no. 1 in the writ petition, as he confined his prayer only qua order dated 02.05.2023, passed by Labour Commissioner, Uttarakhand in Appeal No. 02 of 2022. By the said order, Labour Commissioner, acting as Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, dismissed the Appeal filed by petitioner under sub- section 7 of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act as not maintainable. Sub- section (7) of Section 7 of the aforesaid Act is extracted below:-

2024:UHC:8147 "(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.

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 subsection (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount."

5. From perusal of record, it is revealed that the order, against which Appeal was filed, was passed on 22.12.2021 by the Controlling Authority/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar. Sub-section 7 of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act prescribes limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of order, for preferring an appeal, and the first proviso to sub-

section 7 of Section 7 provides that the limitation can be extended by another sixty days. A conjoint reading of sub- section 7 and its first proviso provides maximum period of limitation 60+60 days i.e. 120 days.

6. Since the Appeal filed by petitioner was beyond maximum period of 120 days, therefore, the same was not maintainable.

2024:UHC:8147

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since Appeal was accompanied by Delay Condonation Application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned.

8. Since the statute provides limitation period of only 60 days, which can be extended for another 60 days under unavoidable circumstances, while, petitioner filed Appeal much beyond the period prescribed in sub-section 7 of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, therefore, learned Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting petitioner's Appeal as not maintainable. The provisions of Limitation Act are not made applicable to Payment of Gratuity Act.

9. Thus, the order passed by Appellate Authority/ Labour Commissioner cannot be faulted. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the orders impugned while exercising supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.) 05.11.2024 Navin

NAVEEN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb904 6f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,

CHANDRA postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103 819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB 21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2024.11.07 16:37:36 +05'30'

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter