The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has reaffirmed that appeals under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be filed within 60 days, extendable by a further 60 days only on showing sufficient cause—thus, delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned. This judgment follows Supreme Court authority and is binding on subordinate courts, reinforcing strict limitation for gratuity appeals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/2750/2025 of THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. Vs K.K SAREEN AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011185292025 |
| Date of Registration | 06-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Bench | Division Bench: MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction; follows Supreme Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Single Bench judgment and Supreme Court authority (Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681) |
| Type of Law | Labour Law / Statutory Limitation |
| Questions of Law | Whether the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act can condone delay beyond the statutory maximum of 120 days for filing appeals. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The appellate remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Act prescribes a limitation period of 60 days, extendable by a further 60 days only if sufficient cause is shown, cumulatively amounting to a maximum of 120 days. The Appellate Authority is not empowered to condone delay beyond this statutory upper limit. High Courts, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, must respect this legislative scheme and cannot entertain writs disregarding explicit limitation provisions, except in jurisdictional or procedural violation cases filed within such period. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Assistant Commissioner(CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment reiterates that legislative intent behind statutory limitation must not be rendered otiose. High Courts’ writ powers do not override statutory limitation except in cases of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice invoked within the limitation period. Legislative schemes explicitly curtail appellate authority’s power; courts must uphold such intention to preserve statutory balance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant preferred an appeal beyond the maximum permissible period (120 days) under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition challenging authorities’ refusal to condone the delay, relying on Supreme Court precedent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts across India and litigants before the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Assistant Commissioner(CT) LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Strict 120-day maximum limitation period for appeals under the Payment of Gratuity Act is now explicitly enforced.
- Appellate authorities lack jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory period—even on showing “sufficient cause”.
- The High Court’s writ jurisdiction generally cannot be invoked to bypass statutory limitation, except in very limited cases (jurisdictional error, gross violation of natural justice within limitation).
- Lawyers must advise clients to adhere strictly to limitation periods; belated appeals under the Act are not maintainable.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court identified the central legal question as whether delay beyond 120 days in preferring a gratuity appeal could be condoned by the appellate authority.
- It reiterated statutory language: Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act allows filing of appeals within 60 days, with a further 60 days condonable for “sufficient cause,” totaling an absolute maximum of 120 days.
- The Bench relied on its prior judgment in LPA No. 1226/2025 and, fundamentally, on the Supreme Court decision in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 681.
- The Supreme Court in Glaxo Smith Kline had held that the High Court’s writ powers do not extend to disregarding the clear statutory limitation, and such powers cannot be invoked as a matter of course after expiration of the prescribed period.
- Strict adherence to legislative intent regarding limitation maintains statutory balance and certainty.
- The present case had no exceptional jurisdictional or procedural violations justifying writ intervention after the prescribed period.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
The delay in preferring the appeal before the Appellate Authority ought to have been condoned as sufficient cause for condoning the delay had been set out.
Respondent
No specific respondent arguments are detailed in the judgment extract.
Factual Background
The appellant challenged the Single Bench’s judgment which dismissed the writ petition upholding the orders of the Controlling and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The appeal before the Appellate Authority was filed beyond the statutory permissible period of 120 days. The main contention was with respect to condonation of such delay.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act prescribes a limitation period of 60 days for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority and allows condonation of delay for a further maximum of 60 days if sufficient cause is shown. Thus, the statutory maximum limitation is 120 days.
- The judgment treats this limitation as absolute; no further condonation is possible in law.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and strictly applies established Supreme Court precedent regarding limitation for statutory appeals.