ORDER : 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Bangalore Division-3 as well as the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Bangalore Region-2, Bangalore whereby the order of the Controlling Authority has been confirmed. 2. The respondent No.1 was working as Kannada Teacher in the institution run by the petitioner-Society from 1994 to 2011 and she has tendered her resignation to the job on 19.12.2011. It is contended that the petitioner has paid Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement towards gratuity amount on 21.03.2012. The first respondent had filed an application before the second respondent on 19.07.2013 claiming difference of gratuity amount with interest. The second respondent directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,25,931/- to the first respondent towards difference of gratuity amount with 10% interest p.a. from 19.07.2013 vide order dated 23.09.2014. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the third respondent which came to be rejected confirming the order of the second respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application filed before the second respondent on 19.07.2013 despite the gratuity amount was settled by the petitioner in full and final on 21.03.2012 at Rs.50,000/- is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 7[1] of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ['Act, 1972' for short] read with Rule 7 of the Rules of Payment of Gratuity [Central Rules], 1972 ['Rules, 1972' for short]. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of the Rule 7[1], it was mandatory for an employee who is eligible for payment of gratuity under the Act to apply within 30 days from the date of gratuity became payable in Form-I to the employer. The application submitted by the employee on 19.07.2013 is not saved by the limitation prescribed under the Rules and this vital aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. 4. The application submitted by the employee on 19.07.2013 is not saved by the limitation prescribed under the Rules and this vital aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. 4. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise V/s. M/s. Hongo India [P] Ltd., and Another [S.L.P. (C) No.14467/2007 dated 27.03.2009] as well as the Cognate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shri B. Basha V/s. The Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Others in W.P.No.35266/2011 [D.D. 28.01.2013] , submitted that the statutory period of 30 days prescribed under the Rules cannot be relaxed or condoned by the Controlling Authority/Appellate Authority while entertaining the claim of the employee. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – employee would submit that the beneficial legislation more particularly, settlement of payment of gratuity to which the employee is legally entitled cannot be denied on technical grounds. Delay if any in submitting the application in terms of Rule 7[1] of the Central Rules requires to be considered in the light of Rule 7[5] of the Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules 1973 ['Rules, 1973' for short] as well as Rule 7[5] of the Central Rules 1972. The Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority having rightly appreciated the aforesaid Rules, has directed the petitioner to make the payment of arrears of gratuity which do not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that, the order impugned being passed in conformity with the Central Rules, 1972 and the Karnataka Rules, 1973 deserves to be confirmed. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, the factual aspects not being in dispute inasmuch as the respondent No.1 working with the institution run by the petitioner-Society from 12.09.1994 to 08.07.2013, the moot question that arises for consideration of this Court is, Whether the Controlling Authority was justified in condoning the delay in filing the application before the second respondent claiming difference of gratuity amount with interest and whether the Appellate Authority was justified in confirming the order of the Controlling Authority? 8. 8. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Section 7[1] of the Act reads thus: “7. Determination of the amount of gratuity. (1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity.” 9. Rules 7[1] and 7[5] of the Central Rules, 1972 are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “7. Application for gratuity. (1) An employee who is eligible for payment of gratuity under the Act, or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf, shall apply, ordinarily within thirty days from the date the gratuity became payable, in Form 'I' to the employer: Provided that where the date of superannuation or retirement of an employee is known, the employee may apply to the employer before thirty days of the date of superannuation or retirement. (2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx (5) An application for payment of gratuity filed after the expiry of the periods specified in this rule shall also be entertained by the employer, if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his claim, and no claim for gratuity under the Act shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period. Any dispute in this regard shall be referred to the controlling authority for his decision.” 10. Rules 7[1] and 7[5] of the Karnataka Rules, 1973 are in parimateria with the Central Rules, 1972. 11. A comprehensive reading of the Scheme of the Act makes it clear that the obligation is placed upon the employer to determine the gratuity amount whether the employee makes a demand for the said gratuity amount or not, the Act provides that the employee has to file an application before the employer within such time and within such Form prescribed seeking gratuity to which he is entitled. Though Rule 7[1] prescribes a time limit of 30 days, subrule [5] of the Rule 7 contemplates that an application for payment of gratuity filed after the expiry of the period specified shall be entertained by the employer, if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his claim and it is made very clear that no claim for gratuity under the Act shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period. Further in terms of the Central Rules, 1972 and the Karnataka Rules, 1973, any dispute in this regard shall be referred to the Controlling Authority of the area for his decision. A harmonious reading of the Rule 7[1] with Rule 7[5] envisages that no claim for gratuity made by the employee can be rejected merely on the ground of delay in preferring his claim provided the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring such claim. This view is fortified by the decision taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P.Galemma and Others V/s Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, reported in 199 III LLJ [Suppl.] 791 [A.P.] as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ramjilal V/s Elphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Mill Co.., Ltd, [1984 LAB IC 1703 [Bom. HC]. 12. The Controlling Authority having considered the sufficient cause shown by the respondent No.1 that the repeated requests made by the respondent No.1 seeking for the difference of payment of gratuity with interest has remained unconsidered by the employer more particularly, notice dated 08.07.2013 issued to the petitioner also having not considered, the delay in filing the application for the claim made has been condoned. Keeping these aspects in mind as well as the object of the Act, the claim of the respondent No.1 for the difference of gratuity could not be denied on the technical grounds now urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were rendered in a different context and the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were rendered in a different context and the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. As regards the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is evident that the Scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribing the time limit under Section 35H[1] to make a reference to High Court was the subject matter, in that context it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to respect the legislative intent and by giving liberal interpretation, limitation cannot be extended by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. But in the present case, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not invoked by any of the Authorities. On the other hand, reliance is placed on the Rules 7[5] of the Central Rules, 1972 and the Karnataka Rules, 1973. In terms of the said Rules, the delay caused in filing the application or the claim made before the respondent No.1 deserves to be condoned. Similarly, in W.P.No.35266/2011, the Cognate Bench of this Court was considering the delay caused in filing the delay beyond the period of 120 days by the petitioner therein before the Appellate Authority. The said ruling indeed would apply to the petitioner since the appeal was filed belatedly by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority not by the respondent No.1. Hence, the said decision is also not applicable to the present facts of the case. For the reasons aforesaid, no exception can be found with the orders impugned, accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The respondent No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited, if any.