INDIAN BANK Vs. BAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated July 6, 2006 the controlling Authority directed the payment of gratuity to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner preferred appeal against that Order. The appeal was preferred beyond 120 days. The appellate authority found and rightly so in my opinion that it had no jurisdiction or power to condone the delay beyond 120 days from the date of receipt of the Order made by the Controlling authority. Section 7 (7) of the Payment of gratuity Act prescribes this period of limitation. The said legislation being a welfare legislation for the Benefit of employees, employees are entitled to receive gratuity from the employer. The said rider has been provided in the said provision that the authority will have no power of jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 120 days. This Court has taken similar view in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. v. B. R. Rangari 2006-III-LLJ-686 in relation to the provisions of Section 7 (7) of the Act. Lahiri invited my attention to the decisions of this court in SBI and Another v. Joyed Textiles and others 1986 Mh. LJ 483 wherein the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were considered. In that decision, it is held that while considering the delay caused in filing appeal by a public institution the same should not be considered on the same line as of a private party. In my opinion, that decision has no applicability with the special statute like payment of Gratuity Act where the Parliament has specifically provided for bar to entertain appeal beyond 120 days. The appellate authority was, therefore, right in dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation. The appeal having been barred by limitation, the same was dismissed and I do not find any error in the impugned order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued also on merit, but I do not think it is necessary in view of the above to djscuss about merits of the matter. Petition dismissed in liminie with no order as to costs.