COMMISSIONER Vs. RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Commissioner, Udumalaipet Municipality. He has come forward to challenge the order, dated 18.4.2001 passed by the appellate authority (15th respondent) under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

(2.) By the impugned order, the appellate authority (15th respondent), refused to condone the delay in preferring appeals and dismissed IA Nos.26 to 38 of 2001 which challenged the order of the Controlling Authority (14th respondent), dated 16.8.1999.

(3.) It was claimed by the Municipality that the order of the Controlling Authority was received by them on 16.8.1999 and they ought to have filed an appeal on or before 16.10.1999. But, however, they could not file it in time. As there was delay of 463 days, IA Nos.26 to 38 of 2001 were filed to condone the delay in filing appeal in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was found that as per Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, an appeal will have to be filed within 60 days to the appellate authority and in case of delay, the appellate authority had power only to condone a further delay of 60 days. Therefore, since the application filed by the municipality was beyond time, their application for condonation of delay was rejected. The writ petition was filed against the said order and the same was admitted on 10.8.2001 and an interim stay was granted.