! x r ‘nRT I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 1867 of 2003 : Cement Corporation of India. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Smt. Malti Bai Sahu & another. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TI-H-E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 09 day of April, 2010) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 17.04.2003 (Annexure P/l) passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur, wherein the appeal of the petitioner being Appeal Case No. 21/P.G.A./2003 was rejected on the ground of delay. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. l made an application under the provisions of the Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority, after considering all the aspects, held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to grant of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 34,349/-. Thereafter, after depositing the money, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner with a delay of 114 days, alongwith an application for condonation of delay, stating that the company was not in a position to deposit the gratuity amount which was ordered by the Controlling Authority. Aher release of the money by the Central Government, the amount was deposited. The court below has rejected the application for condonation of delay \and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. \\ \\. \ @ Admittedly, 60 days has been prescribed statutorily to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, though admittedly the Appellate Authority has power to condone the delay for further 60 days. In the case on hand, the gratuity amount was paid to the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 07.05.2002, the petitioner company has taken a plea that they were not in a financial position to deposit a sum of Rs. 34,349/-. This does not seem to be plausible and justified. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, wherein the gratuity amount must have been taken over by the employee and she must have used the same for other purposes treating it as clear money with no litigation. At this stage, aher a period of 7 years, it would not be just and proper to condone the delay and send back the matter for fresh decision on merits. _ Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. M(W)P No. 1688/2003 is also dismissed. ' - i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihom Judge Amit