Judgment 1. Mr. A. Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for first respondent. 2. Challenging the award, dated 20.09.2013, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, in G.A.No. 319 of 2012, under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the first respondent/Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore. As the said Appeal was refused to be entertained by the first respondent and returned on the ground that, it was filed beyond the period of 120 days from the date passing of the award by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, without properly appreciating merits of the case, erred in awarding gratuity for the period during which, the second respondent was not employed. Challenging the said award, the petitioner filed an Appeal, and as there happened to be a delay in filing the Appeal, the petitioner filed an application to condone the delay, and the first respondent, without appreciating the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, returned the Appeal, stating that he has no power to entertain the Appeal filed beyond 120 days, and therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. 4. Heard Mr. A. Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader for first respondent. 5. According to me, first respondent has rightly refused to entertain the Appeal filed by the petitioner. As per Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, if a person is aggrieved by the order passed by the Authority in determining the gratuity, he may file an Appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of that order, and, as per first proviso to Section 7(7) of the said Act, the Authority can entertain the Appeal filed beyond the period of 60 days, if sufficient cause is shown by the appellant for not filing the Appeal within 60 days’ time and the Appellate Authority was given power to condone the delay of only 60 days and not more than that. 6. 6. Admittedly, the award passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, was dated 20.09.2013, and, it was received by the petitioner on 26.09.2013, and therefore, Appeal ought to have been filed, on or before 24.11.2013 without delay, and with delay, it ought to have been filed on or before 24.01.2014. Admittedly, the Appeal was filed by the petitioner on 9th April, 2014, and therefore, it was returned by the first respondent, stating that, he has no jurisdiction either to entertain the Appeal or to condone the delay beyond the period of 60 days. Though the statute permits the appellant to file the Appeal after a prescribed period, it simultaneously, restrains the appellate authority from exercising his discretion to condone the delay only for certain days and hence, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, cannot be applied in such case. In this case, as stated supra, the Appeal was filed beyond the period of 120 days, and therefore, it was rightly rejected by the first respondent, and, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.