The Appellate Authority's failure to provide reasons for dismissing an appeal against the determination of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 does not vitiate the outcome of the decision if the Controlling Authority has given elaborate reasons for its determination.

JUDGMENT :

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) :

1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 1st August, 2022, passed by the Appellate Authority in Case No. GRA 10 of 2019.

2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and operates a foreign liquor “off shop”. The petitioner claims to be licensee in respect of a licence, issued by the Excise Department, Government of West Bengal for running such foreign liquor “off shop”. The petitioner was a proprietorship concern under the name and style of M/s. Portland Stores and was started sometimes in the year 1980. Subsequently, in the year 1997, a Private Limited Company was formed under the name and style of Portland (Wine) Pvt. Ltd., being the petitioner herein and the said company had taken over all the assets, business and liabilities of the aforesaid proprietorship concern. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said proprietorship concern or the company at all material point of time never employed 10 or more workmen, for the provisions of the Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to the “said Act”) to apply.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that the private respondent, being the respondent no.4, was appointed as a consultant by the proprietorship concern for maintaining accounts of the concern. The petitioner also employed the private respondent for selfsame purpose. It is contended that there was no employee-employer relationship subsisting between the private respondent and the petitioner or the said proprietorship concern. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the private respondent had applied before the Controlling Authority under the said Act for determination of gratuity payable to him. The petitioner participated in such proceedings, filed documents and led evidence. The Controlling Authority had, however, by an order dated 1st August, 2019, overruling the objections raised by the petitioner determined the gratuity payable to the private respondent and by a notice in Form R dated 1st August, 2019 called upon the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.2,15,443/-being the gratuity amount determined by the Controlling Authority.

4. Although a statutory appeal was filed by an order dated 1st August, 2022, the Appellate Authority had dismissed the said appeal. Challenging the said order passed by the Appellate Authority, the present writ application has been filed.

5. At the interim stage, by an order dated 9th September, 2022, this Court taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner was of the view that since, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case and since, the entire amount of gratuity (principal amount) as determined by the Controlling Authority has been secured by the petitioner, directions for exchange of affidavits were issued and an interim order was passed restraining the Appellate Authority from disbursing the amount of pre-deposit in favour of the private respondent.

6. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority did not disclose any reasons despite being obliged to do so. He reiterates that there was no employee-employer relationship as the private respondent was only a consultant. The Controlling Authority had while determining the gratuity placed reliance on extraneous documents which were not exhibited in the proceedings to arrive at a finding that the private respondent was an employee and that the provisions of the said Act applied to the petitioner.

7. In fact, it has been argued that the Controlling Authority while passing the order determining the gratuity has taken into consideration the insurance policies issued by Aviva Life Insurance, which according to him, ought not to have been considered. Similarly, other documents as referred to in the aforesaid order, which were also not exhibited should not have been considered by the Controlling Authority. This aspect was not considered by the Appellate Authority. The o