Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order passed by the first respondent Joint Commissioner of Labour-cum-appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Coimbatore, dated 10.12.2011 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to entertain the appeal, dated 21.11.2011 filed by the petitioner under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and to dispose of the same on merits. 2. It is seen from the records that the contesting third respondent had filed a gratuity application being P.G.case No.2 of 2010 claiming gratuity. The second respondent Controlling Authority after notice to both sides, had directed payment of gratuity of Rs.1,53,409/- together with interest at the rate of 12%. As against the same, the petitioner did not file any appeal within the time frame prescribed under Section 7(7) of the Act. On the contrary, he filed a writ petition being W.P.No.19533 of 2011 before this court. That writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to move the appellate authority under Section 7(7). The petitioner filed an appeal which was out of time. Since there was a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal, he filed a condonation of delay application. The appeal papers were returned by stating that since there is no power for the appellate authority to condone the delay beyond 60 days, the appeal cannot be entertained. Challenging the same the writ petition came to be filed. 3. According to the petitioner, the prescription of 60 days outer time for condoning the delay was illegal. Under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the authority should have power to condone the delay. As per the limitation Act, Sections 4 to 24 will apply unless it is expressly excluded by an enactment. Therefore, the authority was erroneous in not entertaining the appeal. It is in that view of the matter, the writ petition came to be filed. According to the petitioner, the delay was not willful and it is liable to be condoned. 4. The contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court for more reasons than one. It must be noted that the appeal provided under law is only a statutory appeal. The person who wants to avail the remedy provided under such an appeal must conform to the provisions of the Act. 4. The contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court for more reasons than one. It must be noted that the appeal provided under law is only a statutory appeal. The person who wants to avail the remedy provided under such an appeal must conform to the provisions of the Act. The appellate authority is bound by the provisions of the law and he does not exercise any extra power. Therefore, the first respondent was right in refusing to entertain the application to condone the delay beyond 60 days. 5. The stand of the petitioner that the Limitation Act will apply to the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is also erroneous. Neither the controlling authority nor the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be said to be the court for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Limitation Act. It must be noted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act providing for condonation of delay without time limit will apply only to the court and not to the statutory authority or persona designata. In this context it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anshuman Shukla reported in (2008) 7 SCC 487 . In paragraph 17, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "(17.) It is trite law that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to a Court. It has no application in regard to a tribunal or persona designata......" 6. In view of the above, this court do not find any case to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.