HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner workman, being aggrieved by the order dated 27th June, 1996 passed by the Appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the order dated 18th february, 1994 passed by the Controlling Authority to the effect that respondent no. 2 herein was not covered/ coverable under the Payment of Gratuity Act and as such the petitioner employee (appellant therein) was not entitled to claim any gratuity, was approved and confirmed.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as a tailor with the management of M/s. Jagdish Sons, respondent no. 2 herein, in February, 1962. The petitioner resigned from service w. e. f. 4th July, 1988 after working for 26 years with the respondent no. 2. On not being paid any gratuity, the petitioner approached the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and submitted his claim of gratuity for an amount of Rs. 14,733/ -. Vide order dated 18th February, 1994, the Controlling authority dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that provisions of the Act were not applicable to respondent no. 2 since at no point of time the respondent no. 2 employed 10 or more than 10 employees on any day in the preceding 12 months from 1972 onwards, and hence the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as claimed under the said Act.

( 3 ) AGAINST the abovementioned order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 18th February, 1994 under Section 7 (7)of the Act before the Appellate Authority, respondent no. 1 herein, praying for setting side the order of the Controlling Authority. After perusing the records and the order of the Controlling Authority, by the impugned order dated 27th june, 1996, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Controlling authority while agreeing with the findings of the Controlling Authority that respondent no. 2 was not covered under the Act, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to claim any gratuity.

( 4 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings of the Controlling authority, which were subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority, were not based on correct, appreciation of facts and the evidence placed on the record but were based on presumptions and conjectures and thus liable to be set aside. He referred to the order of the Controlling Authority wherein it is recorded that the petitioner had produced his ESI card and the same was marked as Ex. WW1/1. Based on this, the learned counsel for the petitioner contented that in the face of such a relevant document, the findings of the Controlling Authority are inconsistent with the evidence on record, and the same having been affirmed by Appellate authority in its order, the order is perverse in law. It was further stated that orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority suffered on the ground of perversity inasmuch as the same were based only on the presumption that the evidence adduced by the witnesses produced by the management was true, and the orders were passed, completely ignoring the evidence of the petitioner"s witnesses. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner adverted to the deposition of Sh. Ramesh Sharma, MW2, a witness of the management and stated that he had deposed falsely with regard to the maintenance of the attendance register. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contented that the Appellate authority failed to appreciate the petitioner"s contention that there were a total number of 19 employees working under respondent no. 2 and the impugned order was passed in complete disregard and in complete ignorance of the said fact.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that ESI was made applicable to respondent no. 2 only from the period of