JUDGEMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. The petitioners are officials of the Bank of Maharashtra. The respondent No.1 was an employee of the said Bank and hence, the petitioners are being referred to collectively as the petitioner-employer. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are formal parties, being the Appellate and Controlling Authorities under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to “Act of 1972”).

4. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is, as to whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 were justified in holding in favour of respondent No.1 on the question of entitlement towards payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Act of 1972. The petitioner-employer has raised twofold grounds challenging the impugned orders. Firstly, that the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were without jurisdiction, as they did not have territorial jurisdiction to consider the grievance o