IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.166 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9687 OF 2004 Pandurang Dattaram Nangre ... Appellant Versus M/s. SKF India Limited and others. .. Respondents Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Bapat for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 22ND JULY, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 26th February, 2009 wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority which had entertained the claim of the workman to receive gratuity vide its order dated 11.2.2004 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 stating that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the period of 120 days provided by sub-section (7) of the Act. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended before us that right of gratuity is a right conferred by a statute on a workman. Thus, being a statutory right specified in sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act cannot be controlled by the provisions of the limitation This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge in para 5 of the order dated 6th February, 2009 which reads as under: "5. Mr. Ganguli, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, however, submitted that the Limitation cannot be pleaded to defeat a right conferred by a statute on a workman to receive gratuity. The point is, however, covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, Oka, J. in Cancer Relief Society, Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Nagpur v. Asstt. Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and another. (2004 III CLR 349) where this Court held that the proviso to Sub-section (7) confers power to condone the delay only to the extent of 60 days and excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963." 3. The above principle was also followed and clearly enunciated by the another Division Bench of this court in the case of J.L. Morrison India Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Labour & Ors., 2007 III CLR 1022. We have no reason to defer from the view taken by this court. We do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.