- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:403 WP No. 8018 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8018 OF 2020 (L-PG) BETWEEN: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, ARANYA BHAVAN, ASHOKAPURA, MYSURU - 570008. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP) AND: 1. SRI CHIKKANNA, S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, R/O NO.2358, 1ST MAIN, K G KOPPALU, MYSURU - 570009. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY-CUM - CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT GRATUITY ACT MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU - 571301. 3. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER- CUM-APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT GRATUITY ACT, NO.35/A, J J COMPLEX, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU - 570023. …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:403 WP No. 8018 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.04.2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, MYSURU AND IN PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.05.2019 ON THE FILE OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner/3rd respondent under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') as well as the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority/2nd respondent dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. There is no dispute that original order is passed on 15.04.2015. Against the said order, an appeal is filed invoking sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:403 WP No. 8018 of 2020 2. The appeal is filed in the year 2019. The Appellate Authority/2nd respondent in terms of the impugned order at Annexure-B has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal is not filed within 120 days permitted under the Act. 3. Learned HCGP appearing for the petitioners would submit that an application filed to condone the delay by showing sufficient cause and the same is not considered and the Appellate Authority is not justified in holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the appeals under the Act. 4. This Court has perused the provision, sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act reads as under :- "7. Determination of the amount of gratuity: …….XXXX…………XXXX………. "(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub- section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf. Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:403 WP No. 8018 of 2020 satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days." 5. On going through the aforementioned provision, it is apparent that under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within 60 days from the date of the order. For any reason, if the appeal is not filed then the authority is enabled under law to condone the delay of further 60 days, i.e., upto 120 days from the date of original order, if sufficient cause is shown. 6. Admittedly in this case, the appeal is not filed within 120 days. The appeal is filed after four years. Though the application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the language employed in sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act, would clearly indicate that the appellate authority is not enabled under law to condone the delay beyond 60 days after the expiry of initial 60 days. 7. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the appellate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:403 WP No. 8018 of 2020 authority, in not entertaining the appeal on the ground of limitation. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54 CT: VN