BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, REGION II AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner - Road Transport Corporation, appointed Ramegowda as an Assistant Traffic Inspector, for short 'workman', on 25 -07 -1977 and dismissed him from service on 17 -06 -1980, which when referred to the Labour Court, was directed to be reinstated by award dated 1 -3 -1993, in Reference No. 22/1991. That award when questioned in writ petition, this Court by order dated 1 -12 -1995 directed the services of the workman to commence as a fresher from 1 -3 -1993, the date of award. It appears that the workman died on 3 -3 -1998 whence it was noticed that he was paid Rs. 1,45,479/ - in excess of the wages, and when a notice was issued to the 3rd respondent, the widow of the workman, to refund the amount, an application was filed on 11 -09 -2003 claiming Rs. 1,69,869/ - as unpaid gratuity. The Controlling authority having held an enquiry in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act'), allowed the claim by order dated 18 -05 -2005 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,37,530/ -. The petitioner secured a copy of the order on 20 -09 -2005 and though required to file the appeal within sixty days therefrom, as prescribed by Sub -section (7) of Section 7 of the 'Act' and on its expiry, to file an application to extend the period by another sixty days, therefrom, as provided in the proviso thereto, nevertheless filed the appeal on 14 -02 -2006, after expiry of 120 days occasioning a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal and sought condonation by filing an application invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Appellate Authority, having regard to its jurisdiction in extending the period for filing the appeal by 60 days prescribed by the proviso to Sub -section (7) of Section 7 of the Act and noticing that it had no jurisdiction to condone the delay of 25 days, rejected the application and consequently dismissed the appeal by order dated 31 -07 -2006 Annexure -'E'. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority fell in error in not condoning the delay of 25 days in preferring the appeal in my considered opinion, is but a specious plea. Sub -section (7) of Section 7 of the Act reads thus:

(3.) THE observations of the Apex Court, in identical circumstances, though under the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax, in the case of The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, AIR 1975 SC 1039 , is apposite: