PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Vs. MALTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal and factual matrix in the captioned petitions being the same, the petitions are taken up together for disposal. By way of these petitions, brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, orders dtd. 29/7/2024 passed by the Appellate Authority under Sec. 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act have been assailed. By way of the impugned orders dtd. 29/7/2024, the appeals filed by the petitioner under Sec. 7(7) of the Act were dismissed on two grounds viz. bar of limitation and failure to deposit the awarded amount. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner at length, I am unable to find it a fit case to even issue notice.

(2.) Briefly stated, the circumstances leading to these petitions are as follows. Vide orders dtd. 6/3/2023, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act allowed the claim applications filed by the present respondents. The petitioner filed appeals dtd. 14/5/2024, received in the appellate authority on 4/7/2024. The appeals being clearly time barred, the learned Appellate Authority examined the issue of limitation in detail. The only explanation for delay in filing those appeals was the time spent in obtaining legal opinion. After traversing through various judicial precedents dealing with the scope of proviso to Sec. 7(7) of the Act, the learned Appellate Authority held these not to be fit cases to condone the delay, as the authority has no power to condone the delay beyond 120 days in filing the appeal under Sec. 7(7) of the Act. Besides, the Appellate Authority also found it fit to dismiss the appeals because, the present petitioner had not deposited the amounts awarded by the Controlling Authority in terms of Sec. 7(4) of the Act. Hence, the present petitions.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as these are fit cases to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Learned counsel for petitioner also argues that these are the cases of faulty computation of the awarded amounts and if the appeals are not heard on merits, it would have wide ramifications. Further, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the delay beyond 120 days also can be condoned by atleast this Court, if not by the Appellate Authority. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case titled Union of India vs Ramesh Chand, 2021:DHC:1978 and order dtd. 25/3/2022 of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case titled Public Works Department vs Nanji Lal & Anr, WP(C) 4912/2022.