S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the order passed by the 1st respondent in P. G. A. case No: 1/89 (File no. 4741/89) dated: 7-10-1989. The petitioner is the employer of the 3rd respondent - employee. It appears the 3rd respondent resigned from service of the petitioner on 31-10-1987. Thereafter the 3rd respondent applied to the 2nd respondent for payment of gratuity. The 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the 3rd respondent who then carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent. By the impugned order dt. 7-10-89 the 1st respondent allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law, having regard to the contentions raised before him, as to how many years of service the 3rd respondent had put in the employment of the petitioner.

( 2 ) SRI P. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that section 7 (8) of the Payment of Gratuity act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) does not empower the 1st respondent to remand the matter. He should have either confirmed the order, or modified/referred it. But there is no power to remand in the appellate authority. Learned Counsel for the 3rd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document