-1- 2025:CGHC:17438 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILasPUR WPL No. 130 of 2016 1 - State of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh Petitioner No. 1 Was Not a Party Before The Learned Appellate Authority And The Learned Labour Court, But Has Been Impleaded as Petitioner No. 1 Herein as It Is Necessary To Implead The State Govt. through The Secretary of Concerned Department, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Survey And Barrage Construction Division No. 1, Kharsiya, Post Kharsiya, District Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Siyaram Jaiswal S/o. Shri Chainsingh Jaiswal, R/o. Saradeeh, Post, Sakarali, P S. And Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Appellate Authority, Under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner, office of The Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Controlling Authority, Under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.04.2025 1) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, passed in Appeal No. 70/PGA/2015 dated Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 24.02.2016. 2) Facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, seeking payment of Rs. 1,70,180 as gratuity for his 28 years of services, claiming his last drawn salary as Rs. 10,535. He also sought condonation of delay in filing the application before the authority. The employer (Petitioner No. 2) contested the claim on the ground that the respondent worked as a daily rated employee from 01/01/1985 to 04/09/2008 and later as a work-charged and contingency paid employee till his retirement on 31/12/2012. The employer claimed that the service as a daily rated employee is not covered under the definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as the respondent was governed by the Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1977. The Controlling Authority allowed the application vide order dated 13/03/2015, directing payment of gratuity along with 10% interest within 30 days. The employer preferred an appeal against the said order but the Appellate Authority upheld the original order on 24/02/2016. Aggrieved by both orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there was a delay of only 4 days in filing the appeal, therefore, the learned appellate authority ought to have considered the reasons assigned for the delay. He would further contend that respondent No.1 was not entitled to payment of gratuity as he was a daily rated employee and his services were regularized according to provisions of the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1977. He would also -3- submit that according to the provisions of Section 2 (e) of the Act, 1972, respondent No.1 was neither the employee of the State Government nor the Central Government. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents. 5) Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 deals with determination, recovery. Sub-section (7) of Section 7 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Controlling Authority may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The proviso further allows the Appellate Authority to extend an additional sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. 6) In the matter of Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 5 SCC 430, the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the legitimate claim of gratuity of an employee, categorically held in para – 17 & 18 as under:- “17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be the travesty of justice, if the appellant is denied his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering “continuous service” for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the services were regularized by the State. 18. It was indeed the State who took 22 years to regularize the service of the appellant and went on taking work from the appellant on payment of a meager salary of Rs.2776/- per month for 22 long years uninterruptedly and only in the last three years, the State started paying a salary of Rs.11,107/- per month to the appellant. Having regularized the services of the appellant, the State had no justifiable reason to deny the benefit of gratuity to the appellant which was his statutory right under the Act. It being a welfare legislation meant for -4- the benefit of the employees, who serve their employer for a long time, it is the duty of the State to voluntarily pay the gratuity amount to the appellant rather than to force the employee to approach the Court to get his genuine claim.” 7) In the present case, respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 4 read with Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, along with an application for condonation of delay, before the Controlling Authority (respondent No.3), claiming an amount of Rs. 1,70,180/- as gratuity and after due consideration, an order was passed in favour of respondent No.1 on 13.03.2015. However, the petitioner failed to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay. 8) Taking into consideration the admitted fact that the appeal was not preferred within the statutory period of limitation and the delay in preferring the appeal exceeds even the extended period permissible under the Act, 1972 therefore the aforesaid delay cannot be condoned. The contention raised by the learned Counsel of the petitioners with regard to the status of the respondent has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Netram Sahu (supra), therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 9) Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim