High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 05 UK CK 0045

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) & Others vs Babu Ram Kashyap & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 19 May 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 803, 804, 805 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

30 paragraphs · 581 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this

common judgment. However, for sake of brevity facts of WPMS No. 797 of 2021 are being considered.

3.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by Appellate Authority/Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central), Dehradun under Section 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By the said order, petitioner’s appeal filed on 29.01.2021 against the

order of Controlling Authority, has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

4.

It transpires that respondent claimed gratuity by filing an application under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. The said application was

allowed and the Controlling Authority, vide order dated 28.02.2020, directed for payment of gratuity to the respondent. The order passed by the

Controlling Authority was communicated to the petitioner on 03.07.2020.

5.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 7 (7) of the Act before the Appellate

Authority in the month of January, 2021. The said appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay, by holding that the limitation for filing appeal

expired in the month of November, 2020, therefore, the appeal cannot be entertained at this belated stage. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has

approached this Court.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Suo Moto Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 3 of 2020, (in Re: cognizance for extension of limitation). By the said order, it was provided that the period of limitation in all proceedings

shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders, in view of the situation arising due to Covid-19 virus. Thereafter, in the aforesaid Writ

Petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 08.03.2021. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“2.1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand

excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

2.2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period

of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation

remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.â€​

7.

Learned counsel for respondent very fairly submits that petitioner is entitled to benefit of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo

Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020.

8.

This Court is also of the opinion that learned Appellate Authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and in view of the

order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal filed by the petitioner deserved to be heard and decided on merits.

9.

In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petitions stand

allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for decision on petitioner’s appeal on merits, as early as possible; but, not later

than four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.