Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : This writ petition has been preferred against the order of the first respondent Appellate Authority constituted under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, "Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of receipt of order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf : Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days. Provided further that no appeal ........" A reading of the second proviso makes it clear that in order to entertain an appeal by an employer under the said provision, the deposit of the amount ordered by the Controlling Authority is mandatory. Sub-section (7) stipulates that any person aggrieved by an order made under Section 4 can prefer the appeal within 60 days and the first proviso to sub-section (7) provides for further period of 60 days within which if the appeal had been filed with sufficient explanation for not preferring the appeal within the first period of 60 days, the appeal could be entertained. But in either case, if the deposit of the amount ordered by the Controlling Authority is not made as provided under the second proviso to sub-section (7) or the first proviso to the sub-section, there would be no scope for the first respondent to entertain the appeal. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited the amount ordered by the Controlling Authority within the said period of 120 days as provided under sub-section (7). On the other hand, it is established beyond doubt that the deposit was made nearly one year and seven months after the date of receipt of the order of the Controlling Authority. The first respondent therefore rightly rejected the appeal on that sole ground that the appeal had been filed beyond the period prescribed under the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, it is established beyond doubt that the deposit was made nearly one year and seven months after the date of receipt of the order of the Controlling Authority. The first respondent therefore rightly rejected the appeal on that sole ground that the appeal had been filed beyond the period prescribed under the provisions of the Act. When the appeal was not filed in the manner in which it ought to have been filed, it cannot be held that even if the memorandum of appeal grounds had been filed within the stipulated time without necessary deposit to be made under the second proviso to Section 7(7), the appeal was filed within time. When statute has prescribed a specific period and also made it mandatory for the party intending to prefer an appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority that along with the appeal the proof for deposit of the amount ordered by the Controlling Authority should be enclosed, it is incumbent on the party concerned to comply with the said provision in letter and spirit in order to make him eligible to be heard by the Appellate Authority. When the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory provision, he cannot be heard to complain against the action of the statutory authority functioning under the Act. In such circumstances, the order of the first respondent in rejecting the appeal which was admittedly not filed in the manner prescribed under the relevant provision, there is no scope for interfering with the said order of the first respondent. Therefore the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.It is stated that the petitioner subsequently deposited the amount ordered by the Controlling Authority and the same is lying in deposit with the first respondent. Since the order of the Controlling Authority has become final, the first respondent is directed to disburse the amount deposited with it to the third respondent on receipt of copy of this order.