Delhi High Court Upholds Strict Compliance with Payment of Gratuity Act; Rules Appeals Barred Beyond 120 Days and Dismisses Petitions for Delay and Non-Deposit of Gratuity Amounts

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a series of writ petitions filed by the Public Works Department challenging orders of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court ruled that:

1. Appeals filed beyond the statutory maximum period of 120 days cannot be entertained under any circumstances.
2. Failure to deposit the gratuity amount awarded by the Controlling Authority also disqualifies admission of appeals under the Act.

The court emphasized that gratuity payments are statutory entitlements, and procedural lapses by employers cannot justify delaying benefits to employees.

Facts:

1. Claims and Initial Orders:
   • Several employees filed claims for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which were allowed by the Controlling Authority on March 6, 2023.
   • The Controlling Authority directed the petitioner (Public Works Department) to pay the gratuity amounts to the respective employees.
2. Appeals Filed Beyond Time Limit:
   • The petitioner filed appeals on July 4, 2024, well beyond the statutory time limit of 60 days, including the additional 60-day extension provided under Section 7(7) of the Act.
3. Dismissal by Appellate Authority:
   • The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals on two grounds:
     • Delay beyond the permissible period of 120 days.
     • Non-deposit of the gratuity amounts as required under Section 7(4) of the Act.
4. Present Petitions:
   • The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Appellate Authority’s decisions.

Issues:

1. Whether the delay in filing appeals beyond the statutory maximum of 120 days could be condoned.
2. Whether the failure to deposit the awarded gratuity amounts could be overlooked for the appeals to be admitted.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Delay Justification:
   • The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by time spent in obtaining legal advice and preparing the appeals.
   • It claimed that these cases involved faulty computation of gratuity amounts, and denying appeals on technical grounds would lead to unjust consequences.
2. Citing Precedents:
   • The petitioner relied on judgments such as Union of India v. Ramesh Chand (2021) and Public Works Department v. Nanji Lal (2022), arguing that courts have the inherent power to condone delays in the interest of justice.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents (employees) were not represented in court, but the Appellate Authority’s dismissal was grounded in strict compliance with the statutory provisions.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act:
   • An appeal under this section must be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order from the Controlling Authority.
   • The Appellate Authority can extend this period by another 60 days if sufficient cause for the delay is shown.
   • Beyond 120 days, the authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
2. Mandatory Deposit of Gratuity Amounts:
   • Section 7(4) of the Act mandates that the employer must deposit the awarded gratuity amount as a precondition for admission of the appeal.
3. Difference Between “Extension” and “Condonation”:
   • The court highlighted that the Payment of Gratuity Act allows only an “extension” of the appeal period for up to 120 days, unlike the Limitation Act, which provides for “condonation” of delays under Section 5 in a more liberal manner.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Union of India v. Ramesh Chand (2021):
   • This case involved the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to government employees. The High Court in that case held that jurisdictional questions should be decided before dismissing appeals on limitation grounds. However, in the present case, no such jurisdictional challenge existed.
2. Public Works Department v. Nanji Lal (2022):
   • The petitioner relied on this decision, but the court noted that it was a consent order and did not address the statutory limitation under Section 7(7). Hence, it was not applicable to the current case.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Strict Adherence to Limitation Period:
   • The court ruled that the statutory time limit of 120 days for appeals under Section 7(7) is absolute and cannot be extended under any circumstances. Allowing appeals beyond this limit would undermine the legislative intent.
2. Mandatory Deposit Requirement:
   • The petitioner’s failure to deposit the gratuity amounts also barred admission of the appeals. The court emphasized that this condition is not a mere formality but a substantive requirement.
3. Vague Justification for Delay:
   • The petitioner’s explanation for the delay—time taken for legal advice—was deemed vague and insufficient. The court noted that the State, as an employer, cannot rely on such flimsy grounds to delay payments under a benevolent statute.
4. Importance of Gratuity:
   • The court reiterated that gratuity is a statutory right, not a charity, and delays in its disbursement defeat the purpose of the legislation.
5. State’s Responsibility:
   • Citing previous judgments, the court castigated government departments for their lethargic approach to litigation and emphasized the need for accountability.

Conclusion:

• The High Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s orders, finding no infirmity in its reasoning.
• The petitioner was directed to comply with the Controlling Authority’s orders and pay the awarded gratuity amounts within two weeks.

Implications:

1. Reinforcement of Timelines:
   • The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in labor legislations like the Payment of Gratuity Act.
   • Employers, particularly government departments, must act diligently to avoid procedural lapses.
2. Protection of Employees’ Rights:
   • By enforcing strict compliance with the Act, the court safeguarded the rights of employees to timely receive their gratuity benefits.
3. Accountability for Government Departments:
   • The judgment serves as a warning to government agencies against delays and negligence in handling statutory obligations.

This decision strengthens the principle that procedural safeguards and statutory timelines in labor legislations are sacrosanct, ensuring timely justice for employees.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Trial Court Decision: Refuses to Reject Property Dispute Suit Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Citing Triable Issues Over Competing Sale Deeds and Alleged Injunction Violations