JUDGMENT : R.R. TRIPATHI, J. 1. Mighty local authority, none other than Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner is before this Court being aggrieved by order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Gratuity Act) in Gratuity Application No. 15 of 2006 and Remand Back Application No. 22 of 2008 against which, Appeal was preferred before the appellate authority under the Gratuity Act being Appeal No. 44 of 2010, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay caused in filing the said appeal (appeal was filed after 11 months, as recorded by the appellate authority). The appellate authority under the Gratuity Act referred to section 7(7), whereby, the appellate authority could have condoned delay only up to 120 days and delay beyond that period, cannot be condoned by the appellate authority, is the view taken by the appellate authority. 2. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the petitioner firstly submitted that the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act in Gratuity Application No. 15 of 2006 and Remand Back Application No. 22 of 2008 dated 13th October 2009 is erroneous and widow of Chhanabhai Bhavanbhai Baraiya namely Sunderben Chhanabhai Baraiya is not entitled to receive the amount of Gratuity, as ordered by the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the interest of the petitioner is prejudiced further when appeal filed by the petitioner is not entertained by the appellate authority on the ground that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay beyond period of 120 days, as prescribed u/s 7(7) of the Gratuity Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner heavily relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of D.R. Industries and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 2008 (3) GLH 662 , wherein, Division Bench of this Court has held that, even when there is a specific provision for not condoning the delay, in extraordinary circumstances justifying delay in filing appeal beyond the outer limit prescribed, powers of High Court under Article 226 can be invoked. What is important is that the Division Bench has said that this is not to be as a matter of right. 4. What is important is that the Division Bench has said that this is not to be as a matter of right. 4. The question, which arises for consideration by this Court is, as to whether, present is a fit case, wherein, the High Court should exercise its extraordinary power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India and shall add to the agony of the widow, who is driven from pillar to post for getting the amount of Gratuity for the services rendered by her husband to this local authority. A table showing number of days worked by the deceased husband of the present widow respondent herein is produced at page 35, Annexure-F. He was working as a Safai Kamdar. He had been working since 7th June 1979. He has worked for various number of days in each year up to 1991. If not in all the years, at least in the years 1983, 1985 and 1986, he has worked for 228 days, 204 days and 212 days respectively. It is really painful that a person serving as a Safai Kamdar is not able to procure work for 240 days and on that ground, the doors of the beneficial legislation including that of Labour Laws are shut on his face. In the present case, the agony lingers on to the heirs and legal representatives - widow of the deceased workman. 5. In these circumstances, if the power-extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked, this Court is of the opinion that it will be nothing but abetting to the miscarriage of justice. Therefore, even though there is power-extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court refuses to invoke the same in favour of the present petitioner-mighty local authority. Even otherwise, the Division Bench did held that, such invocation of power is not as a matter of right. 6. As the documents suggest, the Gratuity Application is of the year 2006, it was remanded back and therefore, it is renumbered as 22 of 2008 and thereafter, an appeal of 2010 being Appeal No. 44 of 2010 and now the petition of the year 2011. For all these years, the widow along with other heirs of the deceased workman are waiting for the Gratuity amount, which is prayed for. For all these years, the widow along with other heirs of the deceased workman are waiting for the Gratuity amount, which is prayed for. It will be not inappropriate to mention that the amount, which is ordered to be paid by the competent authority under the Gratuity Act is with 10% interest thereon from 13th February 2006. This Court has no reason for not inferring that the local authority must have spent more amount than which is payable by way of Gratuity to this poor lady as Professional Fees for the professional pleading the case of the mighty local authority. This Court is also at loss to understand as to what is the exact definition of Social Welfare State. The Court is not of the opinion that no case should be contested in the Courts of law by the local authority but at the same time, there must be somebody with a discretionary power to decide as to whether in a particular case, right of contesting the matter should be exercised or not. There are cases and cases, which can be contested because one may involve matter of policy, matter of long lasting impact, but present is the case, which does not have any of the aforesaid factors involved and therefore, this Court dismisses this petition with a direction to the petitioner that the amount of Gratuity be paid at the earliest but not later than 30th September, 2011. 7. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.