ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent no.3 dated 28.09.2020 delivered upon the petitioner on 08.10.2020 passed in PGA-15/2020 the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent no.1 was employed by the petitioner on the post of General Mazdoor Category-I. However, in the course of his employment a complaint was received in respect of his getting employment by impersonating himself. Subsequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the respondent no.1 was terminated from service vide order dated 30.04.2018.

3. The order of termination from service has not been challenged by the employee before any Court of law. Subsequently, the respondent no.1 preferred an application before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The matter was registered as Case No. BSP-36(71)/2019-RLC. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 11.03.2020 passed an order holding that the respondent no.1 is entitled for payment of gratuity to the tune of Rs.20,00,000. The order of the Controlling Authority was subjected to challenge before the Appellate Authority i.e. the respondent no.3 under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The respondent no.3 vide impugned order dated 28.09.2020 dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner on the ground that the appeal has not been properly constituted as is required under the provisions of Sub Section 7 of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. According to the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was required to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Controlling Authority, and refused to accept a Demand Draft of Rs.1636343/- which was the actual amount of Gratuity the employee would have got had he permitted to be retired, and the appeal thus has been rejected.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the quantum arrived at by the Controlling Authority is without any basis and is also without any proper calculation in terms of the entitlement under the Payment of Gratuity Act as per the salary received by the employee under the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner company themselves had calculated gratuity amount in accordance with the provisions of law governing the Payment of Gratuity Act upon the petitioner establishment and found that the employee would have been entitled for an amount of Rs.16,36,343 for which a demand draft was also prepared and presented along with the memo of appeal which has not been accepted by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal.

5. The bone of contention in the present writ petition is whether the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal for want of deposit of the amount quantified by the Controlling Authority to be proper, legal and justified or not?

6. For proper understanding of the case it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions of Sub Section 7 of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act which for ready reference is being reproduced hereinunder:

“7(7). Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf:

Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days:

[Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4), or deposits with the appellate authori