Retired CPWD Worker’s ₹2.74 Lakh Gratuity Award Stands As P&H HC Rejects Govt’s Bid To Revive Appeal Filed 351 Days Late

Respondent No. 1 worked as a muster-roll Beldar with the CPWD from 18 July 1985 to 14 April 1994, after which he was regularized and later retired on 28 February 2023.

He received retirement gratuity for his regular service, then claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for his earlier muster-roll service.

The Controlling Authority awarded him ₹2,74,278 with 10% interest, calculating gratuity on his wages at retirement in 2023.

The Union’s statutory appeal, filed on 17 February 2026 with an application for condonation of delay, was returned by the Appellate Authority because it was filed beyond the limitation period and the awarded amount had not been deposited.

The Union challenged that decision, while disputing the calculation but not the employee’s entitlement to gratuity for the muster-roll 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 an extension of no more than a further 60 days for sufficient cause; the resulting 120-day limit cannot be enlarged by invoking Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Division Bench decision in The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others, LPA-1000-2021 (O&M), decided 7 December 2022, held that the Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal beyond that 120-day limit.

Further, the second proviso to Section 7(7) bars admission of an employer’s appeal unless the employer produces the required deposit certificate or deposits the gratuity amount with the Appellate Authority.

The Union stated that it received the Controlling Authority’s order on 3 March 2025 but filed its appeal only on 17 February 2026—351 days later, well beyond the statutory maximum of 120 days.

The administrative steps cited to explain the delay could not confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Authority once that limit had expired.

The Union had also failed to deposit the awarded amount as required by the second proviso.

Although it challenged the method of calculating gratuity and relied on a CPWD office memorandum, those merits could not be examined when the appeal was time-barred and did not satisfy the deposit condition.

The High Court found no jurisdictional error or procedural illegality warranting its intervention under Articles 226/227.

It declined to interfere with the Appellate Authority’s order dated 10 March 2026 and dismissed the writ petition; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.