5o I-i s^^ HIOU COURT OF eHHATTISGARH AT BILASPOR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu, C.J, Writ PetiBon N6.58^^ofa»S Ador Weldjng Limitec), A compahy JrioorpOFated aniEf'registered under Indian Compariies Aot, having its .Registered Cffice at AciorHouse, 6K, Dubash Marg, Fort Mumbai. One of its Unit is situated at Industrial Estate Raipur, the ©ompany^ Represented By its RrinOipa! Qfficer S:^ •Manqj, Manager Aocourits & AanhinistFatiian / Vs. Resoondents 2. SHri Abdul VtelTid, StoS Late Shn, Abelul Samad; R/o 24 Piyush" Colony, Amljdih, Post -•Ravigram, Raipur, Tehstl & District; -Raipur, Chhattisgarh . Assistant Labour Commisslbner, l-abour Commissioner Cffice, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Present: ShriGautamBhaduri.pQunseifoFthepetitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, couhset for respondent No.1. ORALORDER (Passed on 20m1ViaireK, 2007) The Controlling Authority had passed ah adverse order against t.he petitioner on 17-5-2004 andthe same was sewed on 22-6-2004. The petitioner had preferredan appea! before theFirstAppellateAuthorityon 19-7-2004. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had not deposited the amount awarded by the Controlling Authority within the time prescribed underthe second proviso to sub-Section (7) ofSeotJon7ofthePaymentofGrati.i!tyAct,,1972 ("theAct"for short). - The Appellate Authority has rejeeted the appeal primarily on the ground, thaUhe petitloner had failed to complywith fhe;maiidatory prowsion of second proviso fo sub-Section (7) of Section 7 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition ;fi!ed Ainder Artieies 226and227oftheCOnstitutionoflndia. : ; ';: ^ li. J^___L ir lllff n*^? '2. 0 (2) Shri Gautam Bhaduri, learned bounsel appearing'for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not depbsit the amount awarded by fhe Controlling Authority for various reasons, which are exp!ained in the writ petition. Therefore, he submits that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned andthe Appe'late Authonty may be direoted to deoide the appeai on merits. (3) Percontia, learned oounsgl appearing for respondent No.1 justifies the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority. (4) I have carefully psrused the reasons^ assigned by the pet'tioner in not making the deposit within the time presoribed under the second proviso to sub- Section (7) of Seetion 7 of the Act. The explanation offered therein, in my opinlon, is fully satisfactory. Secondly, if the delay in filing the appeat is condoned 't wiil not cause any prejudice to the respondents. Therefore, delay in filing the appeal is oondoned. (5) !n view of the above, thjs petition is allowed in part. The order passed by the First Appellate Authority is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits wlthout reference to the period of limitation. All the other contentions of both the parties are left _T"—^--' open. ! , Chief Justice '