DAMNAGAR NAGARPALIKA THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER VIJAYKUMAR JIVKUBHAI DER vs KAMUBEN JAVERBHAI GOHEL W/O KIRANBHAI M GANDHI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/13133/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240425722026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13133 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
DAMNAGAR NAGARPALIKA THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER VIJAYKUMAR
JIVKUBHAI DER
Versus
KAMUBEN JAVERBHAI GOHEL W/O KIRANBHAI M GANDHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DESHAL A MODI(12518) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
TANMAY B JOSHI(9457) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 29/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate Mr. Chintan Gandhi submits that he has
instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No.2, and would file
his Vakalatnama before the Registry. The Registry to accept the
same.
2. Rule is fixed forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Chintan Gandhi
for the respondent No.1 and learned Asst. Government Pleader
Mr.Parth Patel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 waives service for the
respective respondents.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:26 IST 2026
C/SCA/13133/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240425722026)
3. The petitioner before this Court has prayed as follows:
A. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated
31.01.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 i.e. Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Rajkot in Gratuity Appeal No.208 of 2025;
B. To condone the delay in filing the appeal and direct the
Appellate Authority to register and decide the appeal on merits
in accordance with law;
C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the
present petition, be pleased to stay the implementation,
operation and execution of the order dated 29.03.2025 passed
by the Controlling Authority, Amreli in Gratuity Application
No.12 of 2024;
D. To grant such other and further relief as may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice be granted in favour of the
petitioner.
4. The facts in nutshell are to the effect that the respondent No.1
herein, initially joined with the services of the petitioner
establishment, as a cleaner on 04.04.1982 and the Labour Court,
Amreli, in Reference (LCD) No.42 of 1998, passed an award
treating the present respondent No.1 herein as a permanent employee
with effect from 01.07.1994, and on 30.11.2023, the respondent
No.1 herein attained the age of superannuation and retired from the
services. The petitioner establishment calculated the gratuity by
considering the respondent No.1’s qualifying service from
01.07.1994 to 30.11.2023, i.e. for a period of 29 years and 5 months,
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:26 IST 2026
C/SCA/13133/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240425722026)
and determined the gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.7,60,246/-. Out
of the aforesaid gratuity, the amount to the tune of Rs.4,68,909/-
were deposited in installments at various dates. In the year 2024,
respondent No.1 herein preferred Gratuity Application No.12 of
2024 before the Controlling Authority, Amreli, claiming gratuity by
considering services from the year 1982 and sought differential
gratuity amount with interest. On 29.03.2025, the Controlling
Authority concluded the hearing and passed an order accepting the
claim of the respondent No.1, treating her services as continuous
from 04.07.1982 to 30.11.2023. The Controlling Authority by order
dated 02.04.2025, directed the petitioner herein to pay the
differential amount of Rs.6,04,976/- together with 10% simple
interest from 01.12.2023, and further interest on the amount already
paid.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the
Controlling Authority, the petitioner herein preferred Gratuity
Appeal No.208 of 2025 before the Appellate Authority under Section
7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act alongwith an application for
seeking condonation of delay on 16.12.2025. By way of impugned
order dated 31.01.2026, the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Rajkot, rejected the appeal at the threshold
solely on the ground of limitation by holding that the appeal was
filed beyond the maximum prescribed period condonable under
Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, without entering
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:26 IST 2026
C/SCA/13133/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240425722026)
into the merits of the case. Hence, the present petition.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Chintan Gandhi for the respondent No.1
would submit that in view of the provisions of Section 7 Sub-clause
7, there are no powers vested either with the Appellate Authority or
even with the Court to condone the delay. And for that he has also
relied on the case of Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samiti vs. Umarbhai
Jussabhai Runja reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243425 and the
judgment in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Hansrajbhai
Chanabhai Savasadiya reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243459.
7. For the sake of the convenience, Section 7, Sub-clause 7 is
reproduced herein below:
“7. Determination of the amount of gratuity – (7) Any
person aggrieved by an order under subsection (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
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:26 IST 2026
C/SCA/13133/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2026
(GJHC240425722026)
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
deposited with the appellate authority such amount.]”
8. In view of the judgment passed by the coordinate bench in the
case of State of Gujarat vs. Hansrajbhai (supra), such power does
not lie with this Court, inasmuch as the first part of Section 7 sub-
clause 7 provides for 60 days of challenging the order passed by the
Controlling Authority. However, the proviso further provides 60
days if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the appellant was
prevented by sufficient cause for preferring the appeal. And also in
view of the judgment preferred by learned advocate for the
respondent No.1 in the case of Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samit
(supra),admittedly when the present petitioner has not deposited
such amount, coupled with the fact that has preferred the appeal after
the expiry of 120 days.
9. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, no
interference is called, hence, the present Special Civil Application is
rejected. Rule is discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 15:41:26 IST 2026