1 2025:CGHC:53017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 14 of 2020 The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. ( Appellant Before The Appellate Authority ). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Silmanus Lakda S/o Shri Sunny Lakda, R/o C/o Mishra Atta Chakki, Nawapara, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. ( Respondent Before The Appellate Authority ). 2 - Appellate Authority, Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 Cum Deputy Labor Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Controlling Authority, Payment Of Gratuity Act, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 30/10/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (henceforth, 'Appellate Authority') Ambikapur, District Surguja in Appeal Case No. 151/P.G.A. /2018. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the petitioner 2 under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity, 'PG Act, 1972') against an order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority under the PG Act, 1972, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Case No. 07/PGA/2010, was rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 1 herein had filed an application under the provisions of PG Act, 1972 for grant of gratuity before respondent No. 3 / Controlling Authority, which was allowed vide order 13.12.2016 (Annexure P/2) directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,73,945.00/- as gratuity alongwith interest @ 10% within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of aforesaid order. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 7 (7) of the PG Act, 1972 before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.12.2019 holding it to be barred by limitation. He submits that though the appeal was filed by the petitioner after the delay of one year & four months and the petitioner was able to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, despite that, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding it to be barred by limitation, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal filed by petitioner may be directed to be heard on merits by the appellate authority. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. The learned appellate authority has dismissed the appeal holding that it is not empowered to condone the delay under the provisions contained in PG Act, 1972. For ready reference, provisions contained Section 7(7) of PG Act, 1972 is reproduced below :- 3 “7 Determination of the amount of gratuity.-xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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 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. Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under subsection (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.]” 5. Perusal of provisions contained in Section 7(7) clearly postulates that if any person dissatisfied with an order of Controlling Authority can file an appeal within 60 days, which can be extended by another 60 days for “sufficient cause”. 6. An identical issue has come up before this Court in the matter of State of Chhattsigarh Vs. Shri Ram Prasad Pandey (Retired Forest Guard) 1 , in which this Court has held that delay of more than 60 days from the date of limitation prescribed for filing of appeal, cannot be condoned in any 1 WPL No. 95 of 2012, decided on 16.03.2022. 4 circumstances, as the appellate authority does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay. 7. In view of the foregoing discussing and the ratio of law laid down by this Court in afore-cited case, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.10 18:09:10 +0530