1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR M. C. A. NO. 900 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2794 OF 2010 (Zonal Manager UCO Bank Jaika Building Civil Lin es Nagpur) -: VERSUS :- (Venkatachari and Another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 12, 2010. This Court has disposed of Writ Petition on 9th August 2010 observing that order condoning delay in filing proceedings under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by competent authority can be assailed by petitioner-employer in an appeal under Section 7(7) thereof. Review is sought pointing out the view of learned Single Judge of this Court taken on 6th July 2009 in Writ Petition No. 375 of 2009 and in connected matters that order of condoning delay cannot be questioned in appeal. Similar view taken by learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court reported in Malabar Spinning And Weaving Mill Vs. N. Narayanan Nair and others 1989(58) F. L. R. pg. 434 is also pressed into 2 service. Shri Vyawahare learned counsel who appears for the employee states that he is not in a position to deny the legal position. He, therefore, preferred to argue the review on merits. His contention is, the judgments and law were already in existence and failure of review applicant to point out the same to Court cannot be the ground for review. After hearing respective counsel I find that matter relates to gratuity of respondent employee and hence if the review is rejected the consideration thereof on merits will be unnecessarily delayed. Hence M. C. A. is allowed and writ petition is taken up for admission. The arguments advanced by respective counsel show that respondent employee was dismissed from service for misconduct allegedly involving moral turpitude in 1991. He, thereafter, prosecuted the claim for reinstatement upto Apex Court and failed. It appears that he also approached this Court atleast thrice seeking relief of provident fund amount and gratuity. Order dated 10th December 2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 880 of 2009 shows that the Division Bench allowed writ petition to be withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to remedies under Payment of Gratuity Act. Division Bench then observed that if such application is filed time taken in prosecuting the matters before this Court should be suitably taken into account. Though employee was dismissed in 1991 his 3 gratuity was not forfeited till 8th December 2008. Show Cause notice for its forfeiture was again given on 20th November 2008. Respondent replied to it on 26th November 2008 and then order of forfeiture was passed. After this forfeiture of gratuity and in the wake of liberty given by Hon’ble Division Bench respondent-employee filed his application under Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act before Competent Authority on 21st January 2010. The facts above clearly show that the contention that there is delay of about 19 years in approaching the authorities is misconceived. Employee was no doubt prosecuting various remedies and he may have approached wrong forum but then a bank like petitioner has not chosen to forfeit his gratuity for over a period of 18 years. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the order of competent authority condoning the delay. In view of this, prayers made in M. C. A. are granted and Writ Petition No. 2794 of 2010 is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE SVK