Under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned.

The respondent was appointed as a daily-wage chaukidar on 15 August 1986 and was terminated on 1 August 1992 following a theft incident allegedly attributable to his negligence. The Labour Court directed his reinstatement with 50% back-wages. In Special Civil Application No. 5695 of 2002, the High Court set aside the direction for 50% back-wages but maintained reinstatement with continuity of service. The respondent was reinstated with effect from 1 September 2002 and subsequently superannuated on 30 June 2020.

In 2024, the respondent applied for gratuity before the Controlling Authority. By order dated 14 August 2024, the Controlling Authority directed the petitioners to pay Rs.1,97,232/- with interest at 10% per annum from the date of the application. The petitioners filed an appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 16 December 2025, finding that it was filed with a delay of 463 days.

The petitioners therefore invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Controlling Authority.

1. Whether the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 could condone a delay of 463 days in filing an appeal against the Controlling Authority’s order?

2. Whether the Appellate Authority’s dismissal of the appeal as time-barred warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, under which an appeal against an order under Section 7(4) must be filed within 60 days from receipt of the order.

The appellate authority may extend this period only by a further period of 60 days if sufficient cause is shown. Consequently, the statutory outer limit for filing an appeal is 120 days, and the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that period.

Section 7(7) also requires an employer-appellant to produce or deposit the amount of gratuity as prescribed before the appeal can be admitted.

The petitioners contended that the delay resulted from administrative procedures and the need to obtain permission within the Board. However, the appeal was filed 463 days late, substantially beyond the maximum statutory period of 120 days under Section 7(7).

The Court held that the provision restricts the Appellate Authority’s power to condone delay to a further 60 days after the initial 60-day limitation period; it does not confer jurisdiction to extend limitation beyond 120 days. Accordingly, irrespective of the petitioners’ explanation for the delay, the appeal was legally non-maintainable and time-barred.

The Appellate Authority’s order was therefore consistent with Section 7(7), and no ground for judicial interference was established.

Since the petitioners’ appeal was delayed by 463 days, the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to condone the delay.

The petition was dismissed, and the orders dated 16 December 2025 and 14 August 2024 were not interfered with.