The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the applicable law governing gratuity payments and the significance of timely application for gratuity.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) AS the facts of both the writ petitions are similar, the petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself by this common order. For the sake of convenience the facts of W. P. (C) 7396/2005 are taken note of.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated July 9, 2004 passed by the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2575. 80 to the respondent No. 1 as additional gratuity with simple interest @ 10% per annum from October 30, 1991 to the actual date of payment, within 30 days of receipt of the aforesaid order. Notice was issued to the respondent in the writ petition. Appearance was entered on behalf of respondent no. 1 on August 30, 2005 and time taken to file a reply. Thereafter, none has appeared for respondent No. 1, nor has any reply been filed.

( 3 ) THE brief facts relevant for disposing of this writ petition are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Traffic Inspector with the petitioner/management on November 18, 1960. He was superannuated on September 30, 1991 after rendering service of 30 years and 10 months. At the relevant time, the petitioner paid the respondent No. 1 gratuity to the tune of Rs. 43,209/- on the basis of the last drawn salary of the respondent, which was Rs. 2,560/ -.

( 4 ) AFTER lapse of a period of around 10 years, the respondent No. 1 filed an application tinder Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling authority for determining the amount of gratuity payable to him. In the annexure attached to the said application, the respondent no. 1 claimed that as against a sum of Rs. 45,785/-, due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent, the respondent has received only a sum of Rs. 24,800/ -. Along with the aforesaid application filed under Sub-rule (1) of rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the respondent also filed an application for condonation of delay stating inter alia that neither was he aware of gratuity rules and regulations applicable to the petitioner/ management, nor was any copy of the service rules furnished by the petitioner to him, he came to know about the same only in the month of december, 2001, and immediately thereafter he preferred the accompanying application.

( 5 ) NOTICE was issued on the aforesaid application to the petitioner/management who filed their reply to the said application as also to the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent. On merits, it was denied that any amount whatsoever was due or payable to the respondent, as the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 43,209. 20 to the respondent as per the rules and regulations of the DTC. It was also stated that the respondent/workman was in fact entitled to Rs. 42,240/-, but he was inadvertently paid an amount of Rs. 969 /- in excess and, thus, nothing further was due or payable to the respondent/workman. The calculations made by the petitioner for disbursing the gratuity amount to the respondent were detailed in para 4 of the reply, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

"4. That it is denied that the amount of gratuity payable to the workman is Rs. 45,785/ -. It is further denied that amount paid to the workman is Rs. 24,800/ -. It is submitted that the qualifying service of the workman for the payment of gratuity is 30 years 9 months and 1 day. It is submitted that the gratuity calculated and paid to the workman as per rules and regulations is as under; (I) 2560 x 30 x 15 = Rs 45,785/-26 (ii) 2560 x 33 = Rs. 42,240/-2 whichever is less. "

( 6 ) THE parties were directed to adduce evidence by way of affidavits. It was held by the controlling Authority that the respondent had received an amount of Rs. 43,209. 20 from the petitioner and not Rs. 24,800/- as claimed by him. Thereafter, without any further discussion in the impugned award, the Controlling authority held that the resp