P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

The interference made by the learned Single Judge, though it may appear to be for a limited extent, causing remand of the proceedings to re-calculate the gratuity to be paid to the Appellant, is under challenge, both on legal and factual grounds. When the matter is taken up for consideration at the time of admission, Shri Vivek Chopda entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent and accordingly, as agreed by both the sides, we thought it appropriate to have the matter heard finally and it was heard accordingly.

2. The sequence of events reveal that the Appellant's husband, who is no more, was an employee of the Respondent. His service was terminated on 31.12.2002 on the ground of absenteeism. It also remains a fact that the employee passed away on 09.08.2005. By virtue of the long service the Appellant/Widow of the employee filed an application before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity in terms of the relevant provisions of law. There was a serious dispute from the part of the Respondent with regard to the status of the employee, as well as in relation to the last drawn wages. The Controlling Authority give opportunity to the Respondent to produce the relevant records in support of their contention and after considering the materials on record, order was passed on 27.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2), whereby the amount payable was fixed as Rs.1,46,160/- and it was directed to be paid accordingly.

3. This was to the chagrin of the Respondent who sought to prefer a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the appeal obviously was belated by more than 120 days. Maintainability was questioned by the Appellant pointing out that the statutory limit was 60 days, with a further period of 60 days of delay, to be condoned, if at all explained properly. Considering the legal position, indifference was declined and appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, which was sought to be challenged by the Respondent by filing Writ Petition (L) No. 76 of 2019 before this Court.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the appellant contented that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the statutory appeal had already been dismissed as belated. Under such circumstances, by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court and also by this Court, the merit of the case on any ground could never been examined and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. However, based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent that endeavour of the Respondent was not to cause the merit of the case to be reconsidered, but to rectify the calculation mistake with reference to the 'per day wage' based on a document produced as 'wage slip' of the employee alongwith the writ petition. Relief was moulded to some extent and the writ petition was disposed off, virtually remanding the matter to the Controlling Authority to effect a re-calculation. This made the Appellant to feel aggrieved and hence the appeal.

5. We have gone through the pleadings and proceedings and also through the verdict passed by the Controlling Authority. It is seen that the Controlling Authority had granted sufficient time to the Respondent to produce the relevant records in support of their contentions. The factual position is disclosed from the discussion made by the Controlling Authority in the opening paragraph itself. It will be worthwhile to have the same extracted herein, so as to have clarity of thoughts and deliberation.

“Regarding the length of service the respondent employer's representative was advised to submit the last pay drawn and the continuous service of the deceased employee. The employer's authorised representative informed that there is no service book available with them and further they were advised to submit the last pay drawn and the length of service of the deceased employee, since no service book was available with them. Also the counsel submitted that whether NCWA has been made or not. The re