Appellate authorities cannot condone delay beyond 120 days under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as a Karyakar in 1988 and worked in that capacity until 2007. She was subsequently appointed as Mukhya Sevika on a sanctioned post with effect from 17 July 2022. She claimed gratuity for her service from 28 January 1988 to 30 April 2022.

The Controlling Authority, by order dated 10 October 2023 in Gratuity Case No. 43 of 2023, directed the petitioner to pay ₹6,06,093 with interest at 10% per annum.

The petitioner challenged the Controlling Authority’s order before the Appellate Authority after a delay of 501 days. The Deputy Labour Commissioner rejected the appeal by order dated 1 July 2025 in Gratuity Appeal No. 120 of 2025, holding it barred by limitation.

The petitioner thereafter invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of both orders.

Whether the Appellate Authority was empowered under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to condone a delay of 501 days in filing the appeal?

Whether the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority warranted interference by the High Court?

The Court applied Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which requires an appeal against an order under Section 7(4) to be filed within 60 days from receipt of the order and permits the Appellate Authority, upon satisfaction of sufficient cause, to extend the period by a further 60 days.

The Court held that the statutory scheme creates an outer limitation period of 120 days and does not confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Authority to condone delay beyond that period.

The Court also referred to the decisions in Special Civil Application No. 10769 of 2026 and the Larger Bench decision in Special Civil Application No. 12147 of 2013, relied upon by the respondent in support of the restrictive interpretation of Section 7(7).

The Court found that the petitioner’s appeal was filed 501 days after the Controlling Authority’s order, substantially beyond the initial 60-day period and the additional 60-day condonable period prescribed by Section 7(7).

Although the petitioner asserted that sufficient cause had been shown and also raised arguments concerning the computation of gratuity, the statutory limitation provision did not permit the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal filed beyond 120 days.

Consequently, the Appellate Authority correctly rejected the appeal as time-barred, and the High Court found no jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference. The Court therefore did not examine the petitioner’s substantive challenge to the gratuity calculation on merits.

The writ petition was dismissed, the order dated 1 July 2025 rejecting the appeal was upheld, and the challenge to the Controlling Authority’s order dated 10 October 2023 consequently failed.

Any interim relief was vacated and the rule/notice was discharged.