The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Jammu & Kashmir Central Cooperative Bank challenging an order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which had made restoration of the Bank's appeal conditional upon deposit of the interest awarded by the Controlling Authority, in addition to the gratuity amount already deposited. The Bank contended that such a condition travelled beyond the statutory mandate contained in Section 7(7) of the Act.

While agreeing with this contention and allowing the writ Justice Sanjay Parihar observed,

"The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the requirement to deposit the interest component is merely consequential and not jurisdictional deserves acceptance. Interest follows the principal liability and cannot be equated with the statutory pre-condition governing the maintainability of an appeal."

Background:

The dispute arose from an order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act directing the petitioner-Bank to pay gratuity of ₹20,00,000 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from March 2023 until realization. Aggrieved thereby, the Bank preferred a statutory appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act.

The appeal, however, came to be dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. Thereafter, the Bank deposited the entire gratuity amount of ₹20,00,000 and sought restoration of the appeal.

The Appellate Authority nevertheless directed that the appeal would be restored only if the Bank also deposited the entire interest component and further stipulated that failure to do so would automatically result in dismissal of the restoration application.

Challenging this condition, the petitioner contended that the statute requires deposit only of the gratuity amount determined by the Controlling Authority and not the interest awarded thereon. It was argued that interest is merely consequential and cannot be treated as part of the jurisdictional pre-condition governing the maintainability of an appeal.

The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the expression "amount found to be payable" necessarily included both gratuity and interest.

Court's Observation:

Examining the statutory scheme of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, Justice Parihar observed that the second proviso to Section 7(7) requires the employer to deposit an amount equal to the gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority before an appeal can be entertained. The provision, the Court held, does not expressly mandate deposit of the interest component as a condition precedent.

The Bench noted that although conflicting views had been expressed by different High Courts on the issue, the controversy had to be resolved by interpreting the language of the statute itself. It observed,

"A plain and literal construction of the provision leaves little room for doubt that the statutory requirement is satisfied once the employer deposits an amount equivalent to the gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority... The insistence by the Appellate Authority that the employer was also required to deposit the interest component, as a condition precedent for restoration of the appeal, travels beyond the express language of the statute."

The Court distinguished between the principal liability to pay gratuity and the consequential liability to pay interest, holding that the latter cannot be converted into a jurisdictional requirement defeating the statutory remedy of appeal. It observed,

"Interest follows the principal liability and cannot be equated with the statutory pre-condition governing the maintainability of an appeal. The primary obligation of the Controlling Authority under Section 7 is to determine the entitlement of the employee to gratuity and quantify the amount payable in accordance with law."

Justice Parihar further reasoned that compelling an employer to deposit the entire disputed interest amount before the appeal could even be heard would substantially dilute the statutory right of appeal, particularly where the employer intended to challenge the very award or rate of interest. The Court observed,

"If the employer is compelled to deposit the entire interest amount before the appeal can even be entertained, the statutory right of appeal, insofar as the interest component is concerned, would stand substantially diluted. Such an interpretation would defeat the legislative intent underlying Section 7(7) by rendering the appellate remedy illusory."

Rejecting the approach adopted by the Appellate Authority, the Court held that once the gratuity amount stood deposited, the authority ought to have considered whether sufficient grounds existed for restoration of the appeal instead of insisting upon a requirement not expressly contemplated by the statute. It remarked,

"Hyper-technical adherence to a requirement not expressly contemplated by the statute has the effect of frustrating the valuable statutory right of appeal and cannot be sustained in law."

In view of these observations the court set aside the impugned order. It directed that, since the petitioner had already deposited the gratuity amount of ₹20,00,000, the statutory requirement stood satisfied and the appeal shall stand restored to its original number for adjudication on merits in accordance with law after hearing all parties.

Case Title: The Jammu & Kashmir Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Anil Kishore Gupta

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Nischal Sharma, Advocate

Click here to Read/Download the Judgment.