1.0 Rule.
Mr. Upadyay, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.
2.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being Application No. 128 of 2010 and order dated 07.07.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal No. 77 of 2011 where in the appeal came to be rejected on the ground of delay.
The case of the petitioner is that respondent has filed the application in the year 2010 before the Controlling Authority claiming that his father was to get Rs. 7357/- towards monthly salary and therefore, he is entitled for the gratuity of Rs. 1, 15, 504/-. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 passed order on 26.07.2011 holding that the respondent is entitled for Rs. 1,09,071/-. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred appeal being Appeal No. 77 of 2011 before the Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed on 26.07.2011 on the ground of delay. Hence the present petition has been filed.
4.0 Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the relevant documents. It is required to be noted that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal only on the ground of delay. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has communicated through a letter to the Appellate Authority stating the reasons as to why the appeal was not filed in time and the amount was not deposited within stipulated time of 120 days. It appears that the Appellate Authority has not considered the same.
5.0 It is well settled position of law that the expression "sufficient cause" is to be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to advance the cause of substantial justice, particularly, when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party. Refusing to condone delay may result into meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. In any case, if delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Ordinarily, delay should be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. The above view is interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag versus Katiji reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353.
6.0 In view of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the view that the Appellate Authority ought to have condoned the delay and considered the matter on merits so that substantial justice would be done to the party.
7.0 In the premises aforesaid, the impugned order dated 07.07.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.77/2011 is quashed and set aside. The delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal will be heard on merits by the appellate authority within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order. The petitioner will deposit the amount before the appellate authority as directed by the authority without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall pay costs to the other side quantified at Rs. 1500/-. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the matter on merits.
8.0 Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top