(1) WP. 2644.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2644 OF 2010 Divisional Controller, Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon .. Petitioner VERSUS Bhagwat S/o Babu Nath, C/o. Gajanan Pandurang Jadhav, "Narayani" 25-A, New Joshi Housing Society, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondent ... Mr. Mukesh K. Goyanka, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. The respondent was working as a Conductor on the establishment of the petitioner. He had committed certain fraudulent acts. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him. He was terminated from service. He challenged the termination before the Labour Court by filing a complaint (ULP) no. 24 of 1994. The Labour Court allowed his complaint and directed his reinstatement. (2) WP. 2644.2010 In the meanwhile, he was reinstated but was given fresh appointment. The petitioner preferred Revision Application which was allowed by the Industrial Court and order of reinstatement of the respondent was set aside. It appears that the respondent had worked from time to time during the intervening period. He claimed benefit of payment of Gratuity under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act"). The Assistant Labour Commissioner directed the petitioner to pay gratuity amount of Rs.73,125/- alongwith 9% p.a. as interest from 12.8.2007 until the entire payment was made. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeal bearing P.G.A. Appeal no. 43 of 2009. The appeal was filed after 164 days from the date of the order rendered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The appellate authority held that the delay caused in filing of the appeal was un-condonable. The request for condonation of the delay beyond period of 120 days was legally untenable and as such the Application as well as the Appeal came to be dismissed. Hence the Petition. (3) WP. 2644.2010 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Question involved in the Petition is as to whether the delay caused in filing of the Appeal could be condoned by the appellate authority beyond period of 60 days in view of section 7(7) of the Act. 4. At the outset, it is pertinent to notice that there is specific provision under the said enactment so as to deal with the question of condonation of delay. It is obvious, therefore, that general provisions regarding the condonation of delay likewise one contained in section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable. Section 7(7) of the Act, reads as follows:- "7. Determination of the amount of gratuity- (1) .... .... (7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer (4) WP. 2644.2010 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 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 deposits with the appellate authority such amount. “ 5. Perusal of sub-section 7 would make it amply clear that the prescribed period for filing the appeal is 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, proviso appended to sub-section 7 would come into play. The proviso makes it clear that the appellate authority has discretion to extend (5) WP. 2644.2010 the period by a further period of 60 days. In other words, the appellate authority has no discretion to extend such period any further. 6. The learned Advocate makes a statement that the gratuity amount is deposited before the appellate authority. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw that amount from the concerned Office of the appellate authority. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in "M/s. Pharma Base India Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and anr. 2009 (2) ALL MR 630", held that the Appeal has to be filed within a period of 120 days. In the present case, the petitioner never alleged that receipt of the order was on a particular date and from that point the appeal was within the period of 120 days. In view of the fact situation noticed above, there was no discretionary power available to the appellate authority to condone the delay beyond the period of 60 days grace period after the initial period of 60 days as available under the particular (6) WP. 2644.2010 proviso i.e. under section 7(7) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Petition dismissed. No coercive measure to be taken against the petitioner without specifying any further amount which is allegedly found due and without giving notice to the petitioner for such account of due amount. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp