IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2384 of 2008. Date of Decision: 18th July, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Municipal Council, Bilaspur ….Petitioner. Versus Smt. Sushma Rani and others .…Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. For respondents No.2 and 3: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioner filed an appeal before the Labour Commissioner, i.e., appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 beyond the period of limitation challenging the order of the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council dated 27.11.2004 (Annexure P-4) alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. As per provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the petitioner was required to file an appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of such order, which could further be 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - extended for a period of 60 days but the appellate authority has no power to entertain and decide the appeal after a period of 120 days, therefore, the prayer for condoning the delay was declined. 3. No further second appeal or revision has been provided against the order of the appellate authority, as such the present writ petition has been preferred on the ground that the petitioner had already engaged an Advocate to assail the order of the Executive Officer and according to the counsel the revision was drafted and filed before the appropriate forum. When the petitioner requested for the stay order, the learned Advocate informed that the revision petition had not been taken up for hearing as yet. Despite repeated communications made on 19.3.2005 (Annexure A- 6), 4.10.2007 (Annexure A-7) and 1.5.2008 (Annexure A-9, ultimately the petitioner-Council engaged another Advocate and it was then it came to their notice that no such revision petition was filed. The aforesaid facts have been substantiated by filing an affidavit of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Executive Officer of the Municipal Council. These averments have not been rebutted by the respondents. - 3 - 4. It is a settled law that for inaction of the counsel the party shall not suffer. Therefore, the unrebutted averments made in the petition constitute ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority. As such, the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., Labour Commissioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act is hereby condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal before the appellate authority shall be taken on record. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 8th August, 2011 with a copy of this order and the appellate authority shall decide the maintainability of the appeal on its own merit in view of the mandate of relevant provisions of law, as if filed within limitation. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. July 18, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.