Order Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondent CCl. 2. It appears from Annexure-F to the counter affidavit that against an order passed by the Regional labour Commissioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner did approach this Court earlier by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 413 of 2004. The said writ petition was not entertained by this Court but was disposed of by order dated 23.1 .2004 in view of the fact that there was an alternative remedy of appeal, provided under the Act and •as such, the petitioner was given liberty to prefer appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority and it was. observed therein that in the event of limitation petition being filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though pursuant to the liberty given by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, he filed an appeal before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, but the Regional Labour Commissioner by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 to this writ petition, dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation' and did not decide the appeal on its merit. 4. From perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, it appears that the Regional Labour Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner for the following reasons:- "That as per proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 of person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4), may, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order, prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, provided that the Appellate Authority, 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. But in this case the appellant preferred this appeal on 16.7.2004, i.e. after lapse of more than 4 years of the order dated 10.5.2000 of the Controlling Authority and after lapse of more than 120 days from the order dated 23.3.2004 of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, as such, the petition for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant is not maintainable. Therefore, the instant appeal is hereby rejected." 3. Mr. Therefore, the instant appeal is hereby rejected." 3. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the liberty was given to the petitioner to file an appeal and, therefore, the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad had no authority under the law to dismiss the appeal on the point of limitation. He ought to have decided the case on merit. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner can't be accepted for the reason that this Court did not give the liberty to file appeal whenever he wanted to file, without any limitation of time. It was expected that the petitioner would file appeal at an earliest, since the limitation for filing had already expired. Admittedly, limitation for filing an appeal was 60 days and, therefore, the Regional Labour Commissioner rightly held that the petitioner ought to have filed appeal at least within 60 days from the date of the order passed by this Court but he filed the appeal after more than five months, that also without any Explanation for such a delay in filing the appeal. 6. The reasons assigned by the ap-pellate authority, i.e. the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad appear •to be wholly justified. Apparently, it appears that there were laches on the part of the petitiol1er and he was negligent in preferring the appeal after five months. I find no error in the impugned order (Annexure-7) passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 7 However, considering the statements made in paragraph nos. 21 and 22 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 6, it is observed that since the respondents have admitted those claim of the petitioner in those paragraphs and, as such, the admitted claim as mentioned in paragraph nos. 21 and 22 of the counter affidavit, be paid to the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. .