1 2026:CGHC:2613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 158 of 2025 Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan G.E.Road Telibandh Raipur District - Raipur Chhatisgarh Present Office At Sector- 24, Kayabanda, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shankar Lal Verma S/o Shri Shyam Lal Verma R/o Gram Purani Basti, Ramayan Chowk, Ward No. 18, Nevra Tehsil Tilda District - Raipur Chhatisgarh. 2 - The Controlling Authority Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Balodabazar - District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Appellate Authority Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Office Of The Labour Commissioner Indrawati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhatisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate appears along with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput Judge Order on Board ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.21 11:41:29 +0530 2 15.01.2026 1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 03.06.2025 passed in Appeal Case No.05/PGA/2024 by the Appellate Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Indiravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur C.G. (for short appellate authority) By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7(VII) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short PG Act), is rejected holding it to be barred by limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.1 who was an employee of the petitioner filed an application under Section 4 read with Section 7 of PG Act before the Court of Controlling Authority Payment of Wages Act, 1972 and Labour Officer Balodbazar District Balodabazar (C.G.) (for short controlling authority). That application was registered as Gratuity Case No.466/PGA/2023. Vide an order dated 14.09.2023 his application was allowed by the controlling authority and assessed the amount of gratuity to Rs.8,42,222/- and as amount of Rs. 3,17,871/- was already paid by the petitioner to the respondent NO.1, remaining amount of Rs.5,24,351/- along with interest were directed to be paid respondent No.1 within a period of 30 days. He further submits that though the impugned order was passed on 14.09.2023 ,however, the same was received by the petitioner on 20.10.2023 which is also reflected from the receipt in the order dated 14.09.2023 Annexure-P/2. He submits that thereafter the 3 petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7(VII) of the P.G. Act before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was filed on 01.02.2024. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal holding it to be barred by limitation. He further submits that the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 7(VII) of the PG Act is 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He read over the provisions contained in Section 7(VII) of the PG Act. He submits that the Appellate Authority is also empowered to further condone the delay up to 60 days from the date of expiry of the limitation, thus, an appeal could be filed within 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by the controlling authority. He further submits that as the copy of the order of the controlling authority was received by the petitioner on 20.10.2023 and the period of limitation of 60 days expired on 19th December, 2023. Thereafter, the appellate authority was empowered to condone a delay up to 60 days, i.e. up to 17th February, 2024. The appeal before the Appellate Authority was filed on 1st February, 2024 as such, there was a delay of only 53 days, which is within the permissible jurisdiction of the appellate authority for condonation of delay. The learned Appellate Authority committed a manifest error of law in holding the appeal to be barred by limitation, though the period of limitation could have been condoned by the appellate authority. He further submits that the necessary compliance for filing an appeal before the appellate authority has 4 already been done by the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that impugned order may be set aside. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that the appellate authority only empowered to condone the delay upto 60 days from the date of expiry of the original period of limitation i.e. 60 days. In the case in hand, the impugned order by the controlling authority was passed on 14.09.2023 and the appeal was filed on 01.02.2024 beyond the period of 120 days thus the appellate authority was not empower to condone the delay beyond the period of 120 days and it has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner treating it to be barred by limitation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties perused the record. 5. The provisions to file an appeal against an order of controlling authority is provided under Section 7(VII) of the PG Act. For ready reference provision is quoted herein below; “(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. 5 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.]” 6. Perusal of the provision clearly spells out that an appeal is to be filed before the appellate authority against an order of the controlling authority within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned order. In the case at hand, the controlling authority passed an order on 14.09.2023; however, the same was received by the petitioner on 20.10.2023, which is also reflected from the receipt seal on Annexure P/2. Thus, the period to file an appeal commenced from 20th October, 2023, and the period for filing such appeal expired on 19th December, 2023. 7. The provision also stipulates that the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay up to 60 days from the date of expiry of the original period of limitation. In the present case, on the date on which the appeal was filed, there was a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal, which appears to be within the condonable period of 60 days. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, the learned appellate authority committed an error in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner by treating it as barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The matter is 6 remanded to the appellate authority for deciding the application for condonation of delay of 53 days, if any, in accordance with law. 8. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 12th February, 2026. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Arpan