1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 161 OF 2010 (ZM, M.S. Coop. Cotton Growers Mark.Fed. Ltd. & Anr. vs. A. A. under Payment of Gratuity Act & Anr.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2010 (ZM, M.S. Coop. Cotton Growers Mark. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. vs. A. A. under Payment of Gratuity Act & Ors.) with WRIT PETITION NO. 169 OF 2010 (ZM, M.S. Coop. Cotton Growers Mark. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. vs. A. A. under Payment of Gratuity Act & Ors.) & Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri W.G.Paunikar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri T.R.Kankale, A.G.P. for Respondent /State. Shri N.N.Motghare, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 16, 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel Shri Motghare for employees in Writ Petition Nos. 161, 163 and 169 of 2010 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 appellate Authority in all the mattes. 2. Advocate Shri Paunikar points out that the appellate Authority has not condoned delay of about seven months in filing appeal under Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. He states that two writ petitions challenging 2 identical orders are already admitted by this Court. According to him, since the delay was on administrative ground, the same ought to have been condoned. 3. Advocate Shri Motghare and A.G.P. support the impugned order. They point out that appeal is required to be filed within sixty days and the delay for further period of sixty days at the most can be condoned by appellate Authority. If the appeal is being filed beyond 120 days the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. Reliance is being placed upon a judgment of this Court in Cancer Relief Soci. Vs. .Asst. Commr. Labour, reported in 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 572. 4. In view of the statement made by Advocate Shri Paunikar this Court examined the petition. In this petition the petitioner challenges the appellate order and original order has not been challenged. But since the petitioner is public body this Court has also considered the challenge on merits. The learned counsel for the employees Shri Motghare has pointed that on merits petitioner's stand before controlling authority was of total denial. The relationship of employer and employee itself was not accepted. Before this 3 Court the statement is being made that amount of gratuity was already paid and that after accepting it demand for additional gratuity was made by employees. 5. I find that before this Court the petitioners have urged that as the gratuity was already paid and accepted without any protest the employees were estopped from claiming any further amount by filing proceedings under Section 7 before the Controlling Authority. Thus, before this Court relationship of employer and employee is accepted while before the Controlling Authority that relationship was denied. In view of this drastic change in the stand it is apparent that in the present matter this Court cannot examine the controversy even on merits. The reported judgment (supra) clinches the controversy. In these circumstances, I find that the present matters need to be dismissed. 6. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.