1 2025:CGHC:15414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 68 of 2025  M/s K.N. Oil Industries Through Its Authorized Representative, Dilip Chouradia S/o. Mr. Bhomraj Chauradia Aged 58 Year Add. Ashram Road Mahasamund Teh. And Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 493445. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Office Of The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur Teh. And Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 492001. 2. The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Raipur Teh. And Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 492001. 3. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act And Labour Officer Mahasamund Teh. And Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 493445. 4. Smt. Fagni Bai W/o Shri. Kathanu Kumhar Add. Ward No. 4 Nayapara Mahasamund Teh. And Distt. - Mahasamund (C.G.) 493445. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Nidhi Agrawal, Advocate appearing through video-conferencing For State/ Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 02-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Controlling Authority under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Labour Officer Mahasamund i.e. respondent No. 3, in Case No. 120/ PGA/ 2006 dated 31.01.2018, whereby the application moved by the respondent No. 4 for payment of gratuity was partly allowed and the petitioner herein was directed to make payment of gratuity to the tune Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.07 14:34:07 +0530 2 of Rs. 3,808/- with interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of the order till its realization. 2) The facts of the present case are that respondent No. 4, namely, Smt. Fagni Bai moved an application U/s 7 of the Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority Under the Act, 1972-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur and the same was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2006 as a preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was accepted. Respondent No. 4 and 95 other workmen preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority Under The Act, 1972, Raipur i.e. respondent No. 2 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2007. Thereafter, a review application was moved, which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2011 on the ground that there is no provision for review in the Act. Subsequently, the case of respondent No. 4 for payment of gratuity amount was restored by the Controlling Authority on 16.05.2012; a notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.07.2012 and the case was set for hearing on 31.07.2012. In the impugned order, a finding has been recorded by the Controlling Authority that after the service of notice, the Personnel Manager of the petitioner-firm appeared on 23.02.2017 and filed a preliminary objection and a prayer was made to treat the same as a reply. Vide order dated 31.01.2018, the application moved by respondent No. 4 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs. 3,808/- with interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of the order till its realization. The Controlling Authority Under the Act, 1972 - cum-Labour Officer Mahasamund Teh. And Distt.- Mahasamund issued a notice of recovery on 03.02.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition. 3 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application U/s 7 of the Act, 1972 was filed by respondent No. 4, the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2006 and the order was upheld by the appellate authority. She further submits that the review application preferred by respondent No. 4 was also dismissed as being not maintainable. She contends that the Controlling Authority vide order dated 16.05.2012 restored the case of respondent No. 4 without the authority of the law. She further contends that no notice was served to the petitioner in connection with Case No. 120/PGA/2006, which was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2018. She prays that the order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 31.01.2018 may be set aside. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that initially, an application was moved by respondent No. 4 and other workmen which was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 28.11.2006; an appeal was preferred before respondent No. 2 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2007 on technical grounds. He further submits that the review application was also dismissed as being not maintainable vide order dated 10.05.2011. He contends that the Controlling Authority vide its order dated 16.05.2012 recorded a finding that the order dated 28.11.2006 is contrary to the provisions of the law and restored the case to its original number. He further contends that on 18.07.2012, a notice was issued to the petitioner and the same was duly served; the petitioner appeared before the said authority on 23.02.2017 and filed a preliminary objection. He argues that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 16.05.2012. He would also contend that the order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 31.01.2018 is an appealable order. He 4 further argues that the petitioner has not deposited the mandatory amount and approached this Court by passing the efficacious alternative remedy without explaining the considerable delay of seven years in filing the instant petition. He prays that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents available on the record. 6) Admittedly, the petitioner has not denied the fact that respondent No. 4 was its employee. Respondent No. 4 moved an application for the grant of gratuity. Initially, the application moved by respondent No. 4 and other workmen was dismissed on technical grounds. The appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2007. The review application was preferred and the same was dismissed as being not maintainable. The order-sheets of the Labour Officer, Mahasamund would reveal that the original case was restored vide order dated 16.05.2012 placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Jeevanlal Limited Vs. The Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reported in 1984 AIR 1842 ; thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, an order was passed on 31.01.2018 by the Controlling Authority, wherein it is stated that the notice was served on the petitioner and he appeared before the authority on 23.02.2017 and also filed a preliminary objection, therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the order was passed behind the back of the petitioner is factually not correct. 5 7) The order-sheet of the Controlling Authority would also reveal that the case was restored on 16.05.2012 and that the order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. After the service of notice on the petitioner, the Controlling Authority initiated a proceeding U/s 7 of the Act, 1972 and directed the petitioner to make payment of the amount of gratuity to the tune of only Rs. 3,808/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the order. 8) The order impugned was passed way back on 31.01.2018 whereas the petitioner filed this petition on 26.03.2025 and the petitioner has not explained the delay part. In para-7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has declared that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrinmoy Maity Versus Chhanda Koley & Ors. reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 506 has held that delay defeats equity. It is further held that delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary power under Article 226. It is also held that applicant who approaches the Court belatedly ought not be granted extraordinary relief by the writ courts. Relevant para of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court 6 while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. 10) It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. Remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss this petition at the very threshold. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter statutes of limitation are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace. There must be a lifespan during which a person must approach the court for their remedy. Otherwise, there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the parties. 11) Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrinmoy Maity (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of more than 7 years and in para 7 of the writ petition, it has been stated that there is no delay in filing the instant petition. The petitioner utterly failed to explain the delay caused in filing the instant petition. 7 12) Taking into consideration the amount of gratuity; the delay caused in filing this petition; the argument advanced by Ms. Agrawal and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Mrinmoy Maity (supra) , in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 13) The petitioner, a registered company, has challenged the grant of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,808/- with interest @ 10 p.a. payable to its workman, which appears to be a harassing step on the part of the employer, therefore, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed on the petitioner, payable to respondent No. 4/ workman. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya