Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench, set aside the order of the Industrial Court and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which had condoned a delay of 140 days in filing an appeal. Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar held that the Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 120 days from the date of receipt of the order, and that the period prior to applying for a certified copy cannot be excluded. The Court emphasized that “it is the obligation of the aggrieved party to apply promptly for a certified copy, and no exclusion can ensue for the period lost before making such application.”
Facts
The petitioners, former employees of an educational trust, were terminated in 2019 after long service. They approached the Controlling Authority under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, seeking unpaid gratuity with interest. The Controlling Authority, by its order dated December 18–19, 2024, allowed their claim and directed payment with 10% annual interest till realization.
The management appealed under Section 7(7) of the Act but did so after a delay of 140 days. The Appellate Authority condoned the delay, noting it to be only 58 days, and permitted registration of the appeal on payment of costs. This prompted the employees to challenge the order before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 120 days from the date of receipt of order?
- Whether the period between the date of the order and the date of applying for a certified copy can be excluded from limitation computation?
- Whether the Controlling Authority is obligated to furnish a certified copy automatically, or whether the appellant must apply for it?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that Section 7(7) of the Act allows an appeal within 60 days, extendable by another 60 days if sufficient cause is shown, thus capping the total at 120 days. Any appeal beyond this period is non-maintainable. They argued that the Appellate Authority wrongly assumed the delay to be only 58 days when, in reality, the appeal was filed 156 days after the order.
They relied on:
- J. L. Morrison India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (2007) 6 Mh.L.J. 393 — holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to gratuity appeals and delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned.
- V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 244 — the appellant must apply for a certified copy within limitation; the time before such application cannot be excluded.
- A. Rajendra v. Gonugunta Madhusudhan Rao (2025) 6 SCC 618 — limitation begins from pronouncement or upload date of order.
- Ganesan v. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu HR & CE Board (2019) 7 SCC 108 — reiterating that condonation beyond the statutory limit is impermissible.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent trust argued that under Rule 11(4)(a) and Rule 18(3) of the Maharashtra Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972, the Controlling Authority must provide copies of its findings to both parties. Hence, limitation should start only from the date the certified copy is received. It was contended that the appellant was entitled to a certified copy without a separate application, as per these Rules.
They further cited:
- Changunabai Sambhaji Gaware v. Kapus Visheshadnya Kapus Sanshodhan Kendra (2016) 2 Mh.L.J. 596 — recognizing the duty of authorities to provide copies of orders.
- L. Palaniswamy v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act (1999 II CTC 568).
- Kirtan Ram Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Appeal No. 349/2016 (Chhattisgarh HC).
They argued that the decision in J.L. Morrison did not consider these procedural rules, and hence should not govern the present case.
Analysis of the Law
Justice Chapalgaonkar examined Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which clearly prescribes an appeal within 60 days, extendable by another 60 days, with no further discretion beyond that. The Court held that this statutory structure excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by necessary implication.
Citing J. L. Morrison India Ltd., the Court reiterated that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a self-contained code, and extension of limitation beyond the prescribed period is impermissible. The Legislature’s intent was to limit appellate discretion strictly to the statutory period.
The Court then interpreted the Maharashtra Rules, noting that Rule 11(4)(a) requires the Authority to provide a copy of its finding, but not a certified copy. Conversely, Rule 18(3) mandates that an appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy, and Rule 18A specifies the procedure to obtain one through a written application and payment of fees. Thus, the Court held that a certified copy is not automatically furnished and the responsibility lies on the aggrieved party to apply for it promptly.
Precedent Analysis
- V. Nagarajan (2022) 2 SCC 244: The Supreme Court clarified that limitation runs from pronouncement or upload date of an order; time before applying for a certified copy cannot be excluded.
- A. Rajendra (2025) 6 SCC 618: The Court reiterated that appeals filed without certified copies are non-maintainable; limitation starts from pronouncement.
- J.L. Morrison (2007) 6 Mh.L.J. 393: The Division Bench ruled that the Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay beyond 120 days under Section 7(7).
- Ganesan (2019) 7 SCC 108: The Court emphasized statutory limits on condonation cannot be circumvented by invoking equitable considerations.
These rulings collectively guided the High Court to conclude that the 120-day limit is mandatory and absolute.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the respondent applied for a certified copy on December 26, 2024, though the order was passed on December 18–19, 2024, reflecting an 8-day delay before even seeking the copy. Since the appeal was filed only on May 21, 2025, i.e., 156 days later, the condonation of delay was beyond jurisdiction.
Applying Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, the Court held that only the time consumed in obtaining the copy after making an application can be excluded, not the period before such application. It emphasized that “the act of filing application for certified copy is not just a technical requirement but an indication of diligence.” The Appellate Authority’s assumption of a mere 58-day delay was a “serious error of fact and law.”
Conclusion
The Court quashed the orders dated June 25, 2025, passed by the Industrial Court and the Appellate Authority, holding that the appeals were barred by limitation and the condonation order was without jurisdiction. However, in fairness, it directed that the amount deposited by the management with the Authority shall not be disbursed for six weeks to enable further legal recourse.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the strict limitation framework under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The High Court reiterated that delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned under any circumstance. It clarifies that the obligation to apply for a certified copy rests entirely with the appellant, and authorities are not bound to provide it automatically. The decision strengthens procedural discipline in gratuity matters and limits discretionary extension of time.
