Review Application Invokes Non-Existent Jurisdiction': P&H High Court Rules Controlling Authority Cannot Review Orders Under Payment Of Gratuity Act

"It has not been shown, nor could learned counsel for the petitioners point out, any provision under the Act which vests the Controlling Authority with a power to review, on merits, an order passed by it after a contested adjudication." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 13, 2026, held that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 possesses no statutory power to review its own orders passed on merits after a contested hearing. A single bench of Justice Kirti Singh held that filing a review application before the Controlling Authority "invoked a jurisdiction that did not exist" and cannot legally suspend or enlarge the strict limitation period prescribed for filing a statutory appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act.

A retired postgraduate teacher was awarded ₹4,26,238 towards gratuity and interest by the Controlling Authority, Rewari, following his retirement after 26 years of service. Instead of immediately preferring a statutory appeal, the petitioner school moved a review application before the Controlling Authority and awaited its disposal for nearly sixteen months before seeking RTI information and subsequently filing an appeal after a delay of 574 days. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, compelling the employer to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The primary question before the court was whether the Controlling Authority possesses any statutory power to review its own order on merits and whether pursuing such review proceedings can suspend or extend the limitation period prescribed for a statutory appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court was also called upon to determine whether the Appellate Authority has any jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the outer limit of 120 days.

Controlling Authority Has No Inherent Or Statutory Power Of Review

Justice Kirti Singh addressed the core contention of the employer that the appeal was delayed because it had bona fide filed a review application before the Controlling Authority. The bench observed that quasi-judicial authorities created by statute do not possess an inherent power of review unless expressly conferred by legislation.

The court noted that learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any provision under the Payment of Gratuity Act empowering the authority to review its decisions on merits. Relying on the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Pitamberdas v. Girishkumar, the bench affirmed that the Act does not vest the Controlling Authority with any power to review its contested adjudications.

"The review application, therefore, invoked a jurisdiction that did not exist, and its filing cannot be treated as the pursuit of a remedy recognised by the Act."

Filing Review Cannot Extend Or Rewrite Statutory Limitation For Appeal

The High Court clarified that pursuing a non-existent review remedy cannot stop the clock for filing an appeal. Once an order is passed and known to the aggrieved employer, the only lawful course is to prefer a statutory appeal within the prescribed timeframe.

The bench remarked that even if the petitioner acted bona fide, equity cannot override statutory mandates. The court noted that a party's misconception of law cannot confer jurisdiction upon an appellate body which the statute itself expressly restricts.

"The petitioners chose instead to pursue proceedings before the same authority. That course, even if adopted bona fide, cannot have the effect of rewriting Section 7(7) or enlarging the maximum period prescribed therein."

"Once the outer limit is crossed, the Appellate Authority cannot, by invoking general considerations of equity or sufficient cause, enlarge the jurisdiction vested in it by the statute."

Section 7(7) Gratuity Act Is A Self-Contained Code, Excludes Limitation Act

Examining the scheme of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the bench observed that the statute provides an initial limitation period of 60 days and restricts condonation of delay to a further period of only 60 days upon sufficient cause. The maximum outer limit is strictly 120 days.

Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., the court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is completely excluded. The bench reiterated the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Metal Box India Ltd. v. B.R. Rangari and Delhi High Court in PWD v. Sh. Ghanshyam, affirming that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond 120 days.

"The legislature, while creating the right of appeal, has simultaneously prescribed the period within which that right may be exercised and has expressly conferred only a limited power of condonation."

Brevity In Appellate Order Does Not Warrant Exercise In Futility

Rejecting the petitioner's argument based on Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India that the brief appellate order warranted a remand, the High Court held that writ courts do not direct an exercise in futility.

The bench observed that because the appeal was filed after 574 days—nearly 454 days beyond the non-extendable statutory limit—remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority would lead to the exact same outcome, as the authority completely lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.

Teachers Covered Under Gratuity Act Retrospectively

On the merits of the teacher’s entitlement, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Independent Schools' Federation of India (Regd.) v. Union of India (2022), which held that private school teachers in service as of April 3, 1997, are entitled to gratuity with their prior service taken into account.

The court reiterated that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be converted into a substitute for a statutory appeal that was lost due to efflux of time.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming that the Controlling Authority has no power to review its orders and that statutory appeals filed beyond the 120-day outer limit under Section 7(7) cannot be entertained. The bench directed the pre-deposit amount of ₹3,34,305 to be adjusted towards the gratuity payable to the retired teacher.

Date of Decision: 13 August 2026