ORDER :

1. Since the issues involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are identical; therefore, they are heard anologous and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the Writ Petitions are that petitioners were working as a Gangman in the Public Works Department, they retired after attaining the age of superannuation as gangman in Public Works Department. Petitioner Guharam Sahu worked as gangman for more than 45 years and 9 months and petitioner Ramdiyal Yadav worked for more than 36 years and 9 months in the Public Works Department. The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur had issued pension payment order on 18.11.2015 for petitioner namely Guharam Sahu for releasing gratuity to the tune of Rs. 1,58,794. According to the petitioners, Guharam Sahu was entitled to receive Rs. 2,83,230/- but Rs. 1,58,794/- was paid which is less payment. Ramdiyal Yadav was entitled to receive Rs. 1,85,903/- but he was paid to Rs. 1,50,082/- as Gratuity.

3. Being aggrieved with less payment of gratuity by the respondent, petitioners have filed an application under Rule 10 sub Rule (1) of payment of Gratuity Act 1972 before the Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur but the said authority has refused to entertain the same on the count that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the government servant for grant of gratuity.

4. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act without following the due process of law, without assigning any reason vide its memo dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure P/1) has rejected the said applications. The Controlling Authority has recorded its brief finding that since the petitioners are regular employees of Government Department as such the Controlling authority has no jurisdiction to hear the case for grant of gratuity, therefore, the applications filed by the petitioners are rejected as not tenable, however, liberty was granted to the petitioners to file application before the appropriate forum.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2016, the petitioners have preferred the writ petitions before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Controlling Authority without assigning any reason or without following due process of law has rejected the applications of the petitioners which is against the provisions as provided under Rule 11 of Payment of Gratuity Rules 1973;-

The relevant provisions are as under:-

Rule 11. Procedure for dealing with application for direction:-

(1) On receipt of an application under Rule 10 the Controlling Authority shall, by issue ding a notice in Form 'O' call upon the applicant as well as the employer to appear before him on a specified date, time and place, either by himself or through his authorised representative together with all relevant document and witnesses, if any. (2) Any person desiring to act on behalf of an employer or employeer, nominees or legal heir, as the cases may be shall present to the Controlling Authority a letter of authority from the employer or the person concerned, as the case may be, on whose behalf he seeks to act together within a written statement explaining his interest in the matter and praying for permission so to act. The Controlling Authority shall record thereon an order either according his approval or specifying in the case of refusal to grant the permission prayed for the reason for the refusal. (3) A party appearing by an authorised representative shall be bound by the acts of the representatives. (4) After completion of hearing on the date fixed under sub-rule (1), or after such further evidence, examination of document, witnesses, hearing and enquiry, as may be deemed necessary, the Controlling Authority shall record his finding as to whether any amount is payable to the applicant under the Act. (5) If the employer concerned fails to appear on the specified date of hearing after due service of notice wit