The power of remand cannot be read into the expressions 'confirm', 'modify', or 'reverse' in Sec. 7(8) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Appellate Authority should decide appeals on merits based on available material and may call for more material before taking a decision.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale,J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

2. The petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent - Management running a College, is before this Court, challenging order dtd. 26/10/2021, passed by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby an order of the Controlling Authority was set aside and the matter stood remanded back to the Controlling Authority for fresh consideration and disposal of the application filed by the petitioner for payment of gratuity in terms of the provisions of the said Act.

3. The question that arises for consideration in the present petition is, as to whether the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to pass an order of remand under Sec. 7(8) of the aforesaid Act, considering the specific words used in the said provision as regards the power of the Appellate Authority being to "confirm", "modify" or "reverse" the decision of the Controlling Authority.

4. The facts of the present case are in a narrow compass. On 01/02/2019, the petitioner had filed an application under Ss. 4 and 7 of the aforesaid Act, read with Rule 10 of the Rules framed thereunder, claiming specific amount of gratuity on the basis of statements made in the application and by applying the formula specified under the provisions of the said Act. It is an admitted position that the respondent was served and it appeared through counsel, but, thereafter, the respondent did not participate in the proceedings before the Controlling Authority (in this case the Labour Court). Eventually, the Controlling Authority, after considering the material placed on record on behalf of the petitioner, allowed the application and held that the respondent was liable to pay amount of Rs.11,65,372.00, towards gratuity to the petitioner with simple interest @10% p.a. from 30/06/2018, till realization of the amount.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed appeal before the Appellate Authority (in this case the Industrial Court) under Sec. 7(7) of the aforesaid Act. In the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the respondent pointed out that since it was proceeded against ex-parte before the Controlling Authority, without effective representation, certain material facts could not be brought to the notice of the Controlling Authority. It was stated before the Appellate Authority that there were acts of vital suppressions on the part of the petitioner, which went to the very root of the matter.

6. The Appellate Authority passed the impugned judgment and order dtd. 26/10/2021, taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the respondent and found that the petitioner had indeed suppressed certain facts from the Controlling Authority. It was found that the Controlling Authority had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, while the issue regarding such entitlement was sub- judice before the competent Authority i.e. the College Tribunal and it was yet to attain finality. There were certain other aspects also, which the Appellate Authority found were serious and deserved to be addressed on merits. Having reached the aforesaid conclusion, the Appellate Authority found it fit to remand the matter to the Controlling Authority, after discussing two conflicting judgments on the question as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to remand, one judgment being that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. East India Commercial Company Limited, Lessee of Shri Krishan Jute Mills, Eluru Vs. The Appellate Authority reported in 1993(I) A.P.L.J. 180(HC) and other being judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority reported in 2002(94) FLR 64. The Appellate Authority found that in the context of the issue that aro