IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.5487 OF 2013 (L-PG) BETWEEN SHRI. B BASHA S/O MOHIUDDIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT R.R.MATCH, FACTORY ROAD, HASSAN-573 201.
(BY SRI SUNDARESH H.C,ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972, HASSAN REGION, HASSAN-573 201.
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 001.
3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C.
HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIVEK HOLLA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 35266/2011 DATED 28/1/2013.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appeal is barred by limitation. The delay is of 172 days.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant. An order was passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who is, also, the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, or brevity) on February 24, 2010. The writ petitioner was aggrieved and therefore, preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act.
3. It is submitted by Mr.Sundaresh H.C, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition, that the appellate authority and the Hon’ble Single Judge were wrong in holding that the appeal of the writ petitioner was barred by limitation, inasmuch as, although, the order was passed by the controlling authority on February 24, 2010, but it was communicated to the writ petitioner only in the month of June 2010.
4. The appellate authority recorded a finding of fact that the writ petitioner failed to produce any document to establish that he had, actually, received a copy of the order in the month of June 2010.
5. Admittedly, under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond 120 days, that is, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days, which could be extended for a further period of sixty days.
6. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge holding that the appeal filed before the appellate authority was barred by limitation.
7. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
8. Consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed.
9. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*