Gratuity claims filed late must first face condonation scrutiny before merits can be decided.

A gratuity claim filed beyond the prescribed time under the Payment of Gratuity Act must first be tested on limitation, and the controlling authority cannot decide the claim on merits until any delay-condonation request is determined. The rules governing gratuity applications were treated as prescribing a time limit for approaching the controlling authority, so the claim could not proceed as if no limitation applied. Because the condonation application had not been considered, the merits order was vulnerable, and the proper course was remand for a decision on delay condonation and, if delay is condoned, fresh consideration of the gratuity claim in accordance with law and natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is governed by a prescribed limitation period and could be rejected for delay when no order on condonation had been passed. (ii) Whether, after holding the application time-barred, the appellate authority ought to have remitted the matter to the controlling authority for consideration of the delay-condonation application.

Issue (i): Whether an application for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is governed by a prescribed limitation period and could be rejected for delay when no order on condonation had been passed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme imposes duties on the employer to determine and pay gratuity once it becomes payable, while the rules prescribe the manner and time for making an application to the employer and, where necessary, to the controlling authority. The Court held that the rules do prescribe a period for moving the controlling authority and that the view that no limitation applies could not be accepted. Since the controlling authority had not first decided the application for condonation of delay, it could not proceed to decide the gratuity claim on merits.

Conclusion: The claim was subject to limitation, and in the absence of condonation of delay the controlling authority lacked jurisdiction to decide the gratuity application on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether, after holding the application time-barred, the appellate authority ought to have remitted the matter to the controlling authority for consideration of the delay-condonation application.

Analysis: The petitioner had filed a delay-condonation request, but it was not considered by the controlling authority. The appellate authority was justified in setting aside the merits order because the substantive application had been entertained without first dealing with limitation. At the same time, the failure to consider condonation was a procedural lapse that should not prejudice the claimant. The proper course was to send the matter back so that the condonation request could be decided and, if delay was condoned, the gratuity claim could then be decided on merits in accordance with law and natural justice.

Conclusion: The matter should have been remanded to the controlling authority for decision on condonation of delay and thereafter on the gratuity claim.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the proceedings were remitted to the controlling authority for fresh consideration of delay condonation and, if necessary, the gratuity claim on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a gratuity claim is presented beyond the prescribed time, the authority must first decide the application for condonation of delay; a merits decision without doing so is without jurisdiction, and the appellate forum should remit the matter for proper consideration of limitation and natural justice.

---