(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the defensibility of the order dated October 20, 1995 passed in Appeal No. 8/95 by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur respondent No. 2 herein, and prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the same.
(2.) THE facts as have been ascertained are that the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 7 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Controlling Authority under the Act, respondent No. 1 herein, claiming differential amount of gratuity. The said authority on consideration of the material on record and after appreciating the stand of the petitioner allowed the differential amount by order dated January 25, 1995. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure A-2. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Subsection (7) of Section 7 of the Act before the appellate authority. As there was delay in presentation of appeal an application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellate authority considering the application for condonation of delay by the impugned order rejected the same on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 120 days from the date of passing of the order and, accordingly dismissed the appeal. Mr. Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order has contended that the order is unsustainable as the appellate authority could have condoned the delay beyond 120 days. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 to defend the order passed vide Annexure A. 1.
(3.) IT is the admitted position that the impugned order was passed on January 25, 1995 in case No. CHA-48 (46)/94. It is also admitted by Mr. Menon that the appeal was presented after 120 days.