JUDGMENT 1. Even at the second call none appears for the respondents. In spite of directions no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is represented by Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate. 3. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27th October, 1998 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dismissing its appeal on the technical ground that it has been preferred beyond the time stipulated by section 7(7) of the said Act. The time stipulated to prefer an appeal is a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order which can be extended by a further period of 60 days. The appeal was preferred after eight months. 4. The appellate authority is not a Court but a Tribunal and so in my opinion, the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings before that authority unless it is specifically made applicable to proceedings before it by the above statute. The Limitation Act only applies to Courts. [See Sakaru vs. Tanaji, 1985(22) ELT 327 (SC) and Commissioner of Sales Tax,. Uttar Pradesh vs. Parson Tools and Plants Kanpur, AIR 1975 SC 10391. 5. However, if the Court exercising jurisdiction under 226 of the Constitution of India finds that it is a fit case to extend the time for doing an act prescribed by a statute including preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, it may do so unless the language of the statute is so strict that the Court cannot extend the time. 6. In this statute, I find that there is no such provision like "no further", after the period by which time can be extended by the Tribunal. Therefore this Court can extend the time in appropriate circumstances. 7. A substantial point is involved in the appeal which is preferred before the Appellate Tribunal: Whether a workman can claim gratuity in breach of an agreement between the company and inter alia, the body of workmen? 8. This important question has to be decided in the appeal and cannot be decided, if the appeal is dismissed for technical reasons. Thus, in the above circumstances, it is a fit case for the Court to intervene, as this appeal should not be shut out on the ground of limitation. 9. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority dated 27th October, 1998 is hereby set aside. Thus, in the above circumstances, it is a fit case for the Court to intervene, as this appeal should not be shut out on the ground of limitation. 9. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority dated 27th October, 1998 is hereby set aside. The said authority will accept the appeal and to proceed to determine it on merits. It is stated be Counsel of the petitioner that no recovery proceeding has yet been started at the instance of the workmen. If that be the case, let no such proceeding be started till disposal of the appeal. Let the appeal before the Tribunal be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. This order of stay of recovery will be operative till four months from the above date or any final order of the appellate authority whichever is earlier. Recovery will abide by the order of the Tribunal. 10. The writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the apperring Advocate. Writ application allowed.