M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) IN all these writ applications the only question of law canvassed by the parties and falls for consideration is whether the appellate authority, under the provisions of Gratuity Act, erred in law in dismissing all the appeals as being barred by limitation without entertaining the applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. These writ application are, therefore, disposed of with the consent of the parties by this common order.
(2.) THE concerned respondents were the employees of the petitioner. Central Coalfield Limited. After retirement they were paid retiral benefits. However, after few years of retirement they filed an application in Form 'N' before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said employees also filed separate applications for condonation of delay in filing the applications before the Controlling Authority. The petitioner -Central Coalfield Limited appeared and filed written statement opposing the application of the employees and contesting the claim. Respondent No. 2, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi as the controlling Authority under the Act, after hearing the parties allowed the application of the employees in terms of order dated 28.04.2000. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeals before respondent No. 1, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, who is the appellate authority. A separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay. The appellate authority after hearing the parties, by order dated 20.12.2000, dismissed all the appeals on the ground of appeals being barred by limitation. Hence, all these writ petitions by the petitioner -company challenging the order passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority in his order held that the petitioner -appellant preferred the appeals on 30.10.2000 i.e. after lapse of more than 120 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Controlling Authority and as such the petition for condonation of delay filed by the appellant is irrelevant. The appellate authority, therefore, rejected all the appeals.
(3.) MR . MM. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the appellate authority as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the appellate authority has misconstrued the provisions of the Act in so far as the time for preferring the appeal is concerned. Learned counsel further submitted that the statutory authority having the trappings of a Court would be a "Court" within the meaning of Limitation Act and, therefore, it has got power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In this connection learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India, 2000 (5) SCC 335.;