Retired Cleaner’s Gratuity Order Stands As Gujarat HC Rejects Damnagar Municipality’s Appeal Bid Beyond 120 Days Without Deposit

Respondent No. 1, who had joined the petitioner Nagarpalika as a cleaner in 1982, retired on 30 November 2023.

The Nagarpalika calculated gratuity by counting her service from 1 July 1994, when she was treated as a permanent employee under a Labour Court award, and paid part of the amount so determined.

Respondent No. 1 applied to the Controlling Authority for differential gratuity calculated from 1982. The Authority allowed her claim and directed payment of differential gratuity with interest.

The Nagarpalika filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, with an application to condone delay on 16 December 2025. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time-barred, holding that it was filed beyond the maximum condonable period.

Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, allows an appeal within 60 days of receipt of the Controlling Authority’s order and permits the appropriate Government or Appellate Authority, on sufficient cause, to extend that period by a further 60 days. The provision also bars admission of an employer’s appeal unless the required gratuity amount is deposited with the Controlling Authority or Appellate Authority.

Relying on State of Gujarat v. Hansrajbhai Chanabhai Savasadiya and Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samiti v. Umarbhai Jussabhai Runja, the Court treated the additional 60 days as the limit of the condonation power and held that the Court had no power to extend the statutory period further.

The Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal because it was filed beyond the maximum period under Section 7(7), without considering its merits.

The High Court concluded that the statutory scheme allowed only the initial 60 days plus a further 60 days for sufficient cause, and that it could not enlarge that period.

It also noted that the Nagarpalika had not made the required deposit and had filed its appeal after expiry of 120 days; those circumstances provided no basis to interfere with the Appellate Authority’s decision.

It dismissed the Special Civil Application and discharged the Rule.