1 2026:CGHC:24392 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 6 of 2019  Smt. Pushpa Devi Sharma W/o Late Joharmal Sharma Aged About 68 Years Contractor, Road Lines Gandhi Chowk, Pandariya, Post And Tahsil Pandariya, Disrtict- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Smt. Munni Bai W/o Late Shri Rajkumar R/o Bairagpara, Ward No. 12, Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2. Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Deputy Labour Commissioner, Office At Shramayukta, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act And Labour Commissioner, Near Shyamji Nagar, Commercial Tax Office, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 2 : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer & 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.06 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2) That, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 22.11.2018 and order dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure P/4)/be quashed by holding it to be illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in eyes of law. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.19 14:32:03 +0530 2 10.3) It is prayed before the Hon'ble Court kindly be remand the matter before the Controlling Authority decide the case of petitioner in merit after considering the reply filed by the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief or relief(S) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate would submit that the respondent No. 1/Smt. Munni Bai moved an application on 17/18.05.2015 under the provisions of Section 4(1) of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(for short “Act, 1972”) before the Controlling Authority claiming therein gratuity amount. He would contend that the Controlling Authority allowed the application and directed the petitioner herein to make payment of Rs. 24,196/- in default the amount shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 5.09/- per annum. Mr. Pandey would submit that a copy of order was served upon the petitioner on 9th December, 2016, and thereafter, appeal was preferred according to the provisions of Section 7(7) of Act of 1972 before the appellate authority. Mr. Pandey would submit that the petitioner approached the appellate authority to prefer appeal on 3rd of April, 2017, but the authority was not available, therefore, appeal was filed on 7th April, 2017. Mr. Pandey would submit that the learned appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that it was filed beyond period of 120 days. Mr. Pandey would contend that as copy of order passed by the Controlling authority was served upon the petitioner on 9th of December, 2016, and thus, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was within a period of limitation as it was presented on 119th day. He would pray to set-aside the order passed by the appellate authority. 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that order was passed by the Controlling authority on 25.11.2016 and it was signed on 03.12.2016, and therefore, the period of limitation would start to run from the date of signing of the order. He would submit that as appeal was preferred after expiry of 120 days and sufficient reasons were not assigned, therefore, appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. In the present case, the order was passed by the Controlling authority on 25.11.2016 and it was signed on 03.12.2016. Admittedly, the copy of order was served upon the petitioner on 09.12.2016. The petitioner preferred appeal on 07.04.2017. The period of limitation prescribed to prefer an appeal is prescribed under Section 7(7) of the Act of 1972, which reads as under :- “7(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 sub-section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.] [ Inserted by Act 25 of 1984, 4 Section 4 (w.e.f. 1.7.1984).]” 6. Bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that the period of limitation will start from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed by the Controlling authority. In the present case, copy of order was received by the petitioner on 09.12.2016 and appeal was preferred on 07.04.2017 before expiry of 120 days. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the sole ground that it was preferred after expiry of 120 days. The finding recorded by the appellate authority appears to be erroneous and contrary to record. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order passed by the appellate authority is hereby set-aside and matter is remitted back to the said authority to decide it afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 22nd July, 2026. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant