MANAGING DIRECTOR, JSK STEELS (P) LIMITED AND ORS. Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management was proceeded ex parte on application under Section 7 by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on July 14, 2011 on the statement of Narinder Peon in the office of the Tribunal recorded on solemn affirmation deposing that he delivered Dasti M. No.3108 to 3110 dated May 19, 2011 and the signatures of the recipient were entered in the Peon Book which is part of record. Documented proof of service of summons was exhibited on record.

(2.) The Controlling Authority passed an ex parte order dated February 16, 2012 allowing the claim for gratuity determined under Section 4 of the Act for service rendered from January 01, 1987 to December 16, 2007 by the workman, i.e., for the period of about 20 years. The last salary drawn by the workman was Rs.9500/- per month and in this manner the gratuity was computed in a sum of Rs.1,09,615/-. The Authority has also granted 9% interest on the amount from the date of filing of the claim application under Section 7 of the Act. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 makes it incumbent on the employer to pay gratuity and in case workman is compelled to approach the Authority to seek redress then the order of payment of gratuity would follow with simple interest payable under SubSection (3-A) of Section 7 at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long tern deposits as that Government may, by notification specify.

(3.) The version of the claimant in the claim application was supported by oral testimony recorded before the Controlling Authority. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, the management carried an appeal under section 7 (7) of the Act before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-cum-Legal Remembrancer-cum-Director of Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh in the rank of an Additional District Judge subordinate to this Court. The learned Judge by the order dated September 24, 2014 has dismissed the appeal filed on January 14, 2014 as time barred and consequently has not touched on the merits of the case nor was he required to. The delay in filing the appeal was an enormous 620 days from the date of the order dated February 16, 2012. The limitation for filing an appeal under the Act against an order under Section 7 is sixty days and where sufficient cause is shown for the delay the period can be extended by a further 60 days and no more as after which extended period the Controlling Authority is denuded of power, on a fair reading of the first Proviso to SubSection (7) of Section 7 of the Act.