- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10792 WP No. 63538 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 63538 OF 2012 (L-PG) BETWEEN: THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE DUPADAL, GOKAK TALUK, DIST: BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, GOVT. ADVOCATE) AND: JAKAPPA SABU BANAJ R/O. KOKATANOOR, TQ: ATHANI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/06/2010 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 BELGAUM COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO ORDER DATED 21/12/2011 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 BELGAUM COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10792 WP No. 63538 of 2012 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present petition is filed by the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Dupadal, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum, calling in question the order bearing No.SaKaaAaBe/UpaaKaa/CR-2/2008, dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Competent Authority1, Belagavi, and the order bearing No.UKaaAaBe/PGA/Appeal/CR- 03/2011, dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure-D to the writ petition), passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority2, Belagavi. 2. The relevant facts, in a nut-shell, leading to the present petition are that, the respondent was an employee in the Horticulture department. It is the case of the employee that he was employed from 20.04.1986 till 31.08.2007 on which date, he voluntarily retired from service. After his voluntary 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Competent Authority’, for short 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Authority’, for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10792 WP No. 63538 of 2012 retirement, since the gratuity payable to him under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19723, was not paid, he instituted proceedings before the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Act. The Competent Authority vide its order dated 28.06.2010 recorded a finding that the employee was in the employment of the Horticulture department from 01.01.1988 to 31.08.2007 i.e., for a total period of 19 years and eight months and accordingly, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.49,696/- together with interest at 10%. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Act. The Appellate Authority noticed that the appeal was required to be filed, in terms of Section 7(7) of the Act, within a period of sixty days and that the Appellate Authority had the power to condone the delay upto a further period of sixty days in preferring the appeal. However, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, there was a delay of 120 days. Hence, the Appellate Authority, by its order dated 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10792 WP No. 63538 of 2012 21.12.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner had set out various grounds seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which grounds were bona fide and unintentional, and not due to any negligence on behalf of the petitioner. He further contended that the respondent is not entitled for the gratuity that has been ordered to be paid by the Competent Authority. 5. The respondent is served and unrepresented. 6. The submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate have been considered and the material on record has been perused. 7. The question that arises for consideration is, “Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as barred by time?” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10792 WP No. 63538 of 2012 8. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as the order of the Competent Authority that was sought to be challenged by the petitioner was passed on 28.06.2010. The Appellate Authority, noticing the relevant dates, has recorded the following finding: “(7) F ªÉÄîä£À«UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ G¥ÀzÁ£À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ºÁUÀÆ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« «¨sÁUÀ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 28-06-2010 gÀAzÀÄ gÀAzÀÄ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G¥ÀzÁ£À ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆlÖ ¸ÀÆZÀ£Á ¥ÀvÀæ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É "Dgï" zÉÆA¢UÉ CªÀgÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 17-07-2010 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀĪÀjUÉ gÀªÁ¤¹zÀÄÝ, ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀĪÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23-07-2010 gÀAzÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ®èzÉà ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-07-2010 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀqÀvÀ¢AzÀ w½zÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-07-2010 jAzÀ¯ÁzÀgÀÆ G¥ÀzÁ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîä£À« ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 60 ¢£ÀUÉƼÀUÁV CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-09-2010 gÉƼÀUÁV ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄîä£À« ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ «¼ÀA§ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£Áß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°èzÁgÀÆ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÁVvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß §ºÀ¼À «¼ÀA§ªÁV CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03-01-2011 gÀAzÀÄ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À« ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ «¸ÀÛj¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀiÁzÀ 60 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ 120 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ §ºÀ¼À «¼ÀA§ªÁV zÁR°¹gÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ, ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä G¥ÀzÁ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CªÀPÁ±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ¢®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10792 WP No. 63538 of 2012 ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CºÀðªÁzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÉAzÀÄ ¤zsÀðj¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” 9. It is forthcoming that the Appellate Authority has noticed that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner after a delay of 120 days. Further, the Appellate Authority, noticing Section 7(7) of the Act, wherein it is stipulated that appeal is required to be filed within sixty days and that the Appellate Authority had the authority to condone the delay upto a further period of sixty days, noticing the judgment of this Court in the case of K.V.Rama Rao and Others Vs. M/s. Prashanth Theatre and others4, has dismissed the appeal. 10. It is clear from the aforementioned that the Appellate Authority, having regard to Section 7(7) of the Act, has power to condone the delay only upto a period of sixty days. Beyond the said period of sixty days, the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. Hence, the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal. 11. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that, under the provisions of the Act, there is a power to condone the delay 4 2007(1) KCCR 611 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10792 WP No. 63538 of 2012 of more than sixty days. Hence, the petitioner has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is required to be interfered with by this Court in the present petition. 12. The question framed by this Court is answered in the negative. However, the writ petition is disposed off by directing the petitioner to pay gratuity in terms of the order 28.06.2010 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51