GITA MITTAL, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioner has impugned an order dated 4th September, 2001 passed by the Controller under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the order dated 30th June, 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the same.

2. Shri Vijay Kumar Churiwala (Respondent No. 2 herein) filed a claim against M/s Filmistan Exhibitors Ltd., petitioner before this court under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 alleging that he was employed with the petitioner since December, 1963 and he worked continuously till 30th October, 2000. He claimed that on this date, the petitioner refused duty to him and thereby his services were terminated after a continuous employment of nearly 37 years. As the petitioner refused to pay gratuity amount payable to the respondent no. 2 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he served a notice dated 25th January, 2001 by registered post as well as under postal certificate. The petitioner did not deny the assertions made in the notice by any reply, yet failed to comply with the notice demand.

In these circumstances, the respondent no. 2 claims to have sent an application for payment of the gratuity on 23rd February, 2001 which was also duly served upon the petitioner. There was no denial by any reply on behalf of the petitioner to this application as well.

As the petitioner failed to comply with the demand made by the respondent no. 2, the respondent filed an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority on 23rd March, 2001. The material averments in this application were to the following effect :-

"xxxx

2. Basis of claim Due to termination by employer after

xxxx completing 37 years of service.

7. Post held by the Finance official assistant

employee

8. Date of appointment December, 1963

of the employee(if known).

9. Date and cause of The workman was not allowed to termination of work w.e.f. 30.10.2000 without

service of the assigning any reasonable

employee.

xxxx"

3. In its reply, the petitioner now challenges the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 alleging that less than 10 employees were engaged by the petitioner. No date of employment of the respondent no. 2 was mentioned. It was further claimed that as respondent no. 2 had abandoned his job, therefore he was not entitled to payment of any gratuity.

4. After a detailed consideration of the pleadings and evidence lead by both parties, the Controlling Authority arrived at a conclusion that the respondent no. 2 was engaged from December, 1963; and that the services of respondent no. 2 were terminated from 29th June, 2000 at a last drawn salary of Rs.3293/- Consequently, vide the order dated 4th September, 2002, the Controlling Authority allowed the application of the respondent no. 2 and held that he was entitled to a sum of Rs.70,293/- with simple interest at the rate of 10% with effect from 29th May, 2000 till its realisation.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner assailed the order of the Controlling Authority by way of an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Appellate Authority. Vide an order dated 30th June, 2004 the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed after a detailed consideration of the documents, evidence and the judgment of the Controlling Authority.

6. Having heard the rival contentions, I find that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on pure questions of fact on which both the authorities have concurrently held against the petitioner. The petitioner has contended before this court that there was no material on record before the authorities which established that the workman was in service for 10 years. It has further been contended that the petitioner had laid evidence by way of the attendance register which showed that the respondent no. 2 was unauthorisedly absent from duty with ef