CHHATTISGARH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. ANAND KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in this petition is that in case the employer deposits gratuity amounts as ascertained by the controlling authority under Section 4(4) of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act, 1972) beyond the period of limitation including the extended period of limitation, whether that appeal is to be treated as time barred.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filling of this write petition are that Respondent No. 1 herein was the employee of Respondent No. 3 i.e. M.P.S.R.T.C. as Accountant. The services of Respondent No. 1 were terminated by M.P.S.R.T.C. On 30th April, 2002 which was challenged before the Labor Court and the matter is still pending there. In the mean time, Respondent No. 1 Claimant moved the Controlling Authority, Rajnandgaon, under Section 7 of the Act, 1972 for directing the employer for payment of gratuity. The Controlling Authority vide its order dated 14-5-2003 ascertained an amount of Rs. 1,57,535/- as the amount of gratuity payable to Respondent No. 1 claimant herein and it was further directed that the Petitioner herein should pay the said amount within 30 days. The Petitioner herein obtained the copy of the said order on 6-6-2003 and preferred an appeal before the appellate authority in 14-7-2003. However, the Petitioner herein deposited the gratuity amount on 16-2-2004. The appellate authority on the objection by Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 17-3 -2005 held that filing of the appeal is to be treated on the date when the gratuity amount was deposited i.e. 16-2-2004, therefore, the appeal was filed after 8 months 10 days, thereby the appeal was filed with the delay of 4 months 10 days and treating the appeal as time barred, dismissed the appeal. The propriety, legality and correctness of the same order has been questioned by way of this writ petition by the Petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Rajput, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 opposing the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that as per the second proviso of Sub-Section (7) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972, the appeal is to be entertained and admitted only after payment of gratuity. As per the second proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972, the Petitioner was required to attach a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the Petitioner has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity, which has to be deposited under Sub-section (4), or deposited with the appellate authority such amount. Therefore, without depositing the amount, appeal cannot be treated to be filed as per the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972. In the circumstances, the appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeal being time barred.