JUDGMENT : (A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.) Heard. 2.In the present writ petition, the petitioner is a private unaided educational institution – Saraswathy Venkataraman Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Thiruvanmiyur, represented by its President Mr.Venkataraman. The challenge is to a recovery notice dated 26.08.2020 issued by the first respondent – Joint Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai (the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ) – directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,37,500 as gratuity to the second respondent, failing which coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act would be initiated. 3.According to the petitioner, Mrs.Usha Nandakumar was employed as Principal of the School from April 1996 and voluntarily resigned from service on 22.06.2016. The petitioner acknowledges that she had rendered continuous service for over 20 years and was thus eligible for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 . However, it is contended that the Controlling Authority erred in computing the gratuity by taking into account her gross consolidated salary of Rs.55,250/- per month. The petitioner maintains that only the basic pay of Rs.31,320/- and dearness allowance of Rs.2,610/- totalling Rs.33,930/- fall within the definition of 'wages' under Section 2 (s) of the Act and should alone have been reckoned for computation. On this basis, and taking the qualifying service as 19 years from 03.04.1997 to 21.06.2016, the gratuity payable would come to Rs.3,91,570/- which the petitioner is willing to deposit without prejudice. It is further submitted that the second respondent had claimed gratuity for the period from 01.05.1996 to 22.06.2016 (20 years) based on her last drawn gross salary of Rs.55,250/- and that the Controllling Authority erroneously accepted this claim in computing the amount as Rs.6,37,500/- which the petitioner contends is contrary to the statutory formula. 4.The petitioner further states that upon receiving the order passed by the Controlling Authority in P.G.No.104 of 2017 on 27.11.2019, an appeal was filed under Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act on 31.01.2020. The delay in preferring the appeal is sought to be explained on account of the demise of the petitioner's father in December 2019, who was himself a trustee of the institution, coupled with the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown that ensued in March 2020. It is claimed that these circumstances constituted sufficient cause and that the appeal was filed within the time permitted by the statute. It is claimed that these circumstances constituted sufficient cause and that the appeal was filed within the time permitted by the statute. 5.While the appeal remains pending and unnumbered before the Appellate Authority, the first respondent proceeded to issue the impugned recovery notice. The petitioner contends that this action is premature and violative of the scheme of the Act, particularly when the validity of the gratuity determination is sub judice before the superior authority. The affidavit also levels serious allegations against the second respondent, asserting that during her tenure as Principal, she had committed several procedural and administrative irregularities – most notably, in the admission of two ineligible students under the Right to Education (RTE) Act. The petitioner alleges that this was done without the knowledge or approval of the management, causing a continuing financial loss to the tune of Rs.3,35,270/- which the school was unable to recoup due to the irregular nature of the admissions. 6.According to the petitioner, the resignation tendered by the second respondent was a calculated more made in anticipation of internal inquiries being initiated. It is alleged that the second respondent remained evasive when contacted for clarification regarding the irregularities, even as she continued to pursue her gratuity claim. The petitioner argues that such conduct ought to have been weighed by the Controlling Authority before the passing the order in P.G.No.104 of 2017. It is submitted that the Authority instead proceeded on the presumption that the school had failed to disprove the second respondent's version, thereby reversing the burden of proof contrary to established principles. 7.The second respondent, Mrs. Usha Nandakumar, was appointed as the Principal of the school in May 1996 and served until her resignation on 22.06.2016. In her resignation letter dated the same day, she cited personal reasons and following her exit, she filed an application in P.G.No.104 of 2017 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, seeking a gratuity payment of Rs.6,37,500/- based on her last drawn consolidated salary of Rs.55,250/-. The Authority accepted her claim and by order dated 11.10.2019, directed the petitioner to pay the said sum with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. 8.The second respondent passed away during the pendency of the proceedings and her legal heirs – Mr. B. Nandakumar and Mr. Hemaanand Nandakumar – were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 by order dated 24.03.2025 in W.M.P.No.12006 of 2025. 8.The second respondent passed away during the pendency of the proceedings and her legal heirs – Mr. B. Nandakumar and Mr. Hemaanand Nandakumar – were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 by order dated 24.03.2025 in W.M.P.No.12006 of 2025. 9.At the initial hearing of the writ petition on 09.10.2020, this Court granted an interim stay of the impugned recovery proceedings, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.3,91,570/-, computed on the basis of basic pay and dearness allowance – within four weeks. The matter was directed to be posted after six weeks, with private notice to the respondents permitted. Despite this, the school failed to comply with the condition. 10.The progress of the case was subsequently hindered by inaction on the part of the petitioner. A memo dated 23.02.2024 was filed by the then counsel for the petitioner, Jayaraman & Associates, stating that the management had failed to comply with the conditional deposit order and had not responded to repeated communications. A letter seeking change of vakalat was sent on 14.02.2024 and acknowledged on 15.02.2024, but no instructions were forthcoming. Counsel accordingly reported “no instructions” before the Court. 11.Following this, as reflected in the docket dated 07.06.2024, a fresh vakalat was filed and Ms. Kavitha Balaji, Advocate, entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner, thereby reviving the proceedings. This development marked a formal change in legal representation. The docket indicates that she sought time to get instructions and take necessary steps to regularise the petition and the matter was accordingly adjourned for further hearing. 12.In the order dated 11.10.2019, the Controlling Authority accepted the second respondent's claim, taking into account a total service period of 20 years and the claimed salary to Rs.55,250/-. Gratuity was computed using the statutory formula: Rs.55,250/- X 15 X 20/26 = Rs.6,37,500/-. The Authority held the school liable to pay the said amount along with interest at 10% per annum. 13. Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act permits filing of an appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the Controlling Authority's order, with an additional 60 days on sufficient cause being shown. The second proviso mandates that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless the amount of gratuity as determined by the Controlling Authority is deposited with the Appellate Authority. The second proviso mandates that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless the amount of gratuity as determined by the Controlling Authority is deposited with the Appellate Authority. 14.In Special Officer, Kanyakumari District Co-operative Printing Works Ltd., V. Appellate Authority [ 2001 (2) LLN 445 ], and Britannia Industries Ltd. V. Labour Court [ 2001 (2) LLN 447 ], the Madras High Court held that non-deposit of the full gratuity amount within the statutory period rendered the appeal not maintainable. The appellate authority cannot entertain or number the appeal unless the condition of deposit is fulfilled. 15.Further, in City College V. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1985 Cal 1279 ], applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in Sakur V. Tanaji [ AIR 1985 SC 1279 ], it was held that the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) is a persona designata, not a court, and therefore, the Limitation Act does not apply. Delay beyond 120 days is not condonable. 16.In the present case, the petitioner admittedly did not deposit the full amount of Rs.6,37,500/-. The statutory precondition for entertaining the appeal has not been complied with. The interim relief granted by this Court was conditional on depositing Rs.3,91,570/-, which too was not honoured. Thus, the appeal remains defective and the petitioner has failed to act diligently. 17.Given the failure to deposit the amount directed by the Controlling Authority and the admitted non-compliance with this Court's conditional order, this Court sees no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226. The recovery proceedings initiated by the first respondent are in accordance with law. 18.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 09.10.2020 stands vacated. The first respondent is entitled to proceed with the recovery of the gratuity amount as ordered. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.