( 1 ) RAVAL, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the respondent is served by affixing the copy and nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) UPON hearing Mr. Raval for the petitioner, it appears that the present case is more or less on the same ground and on the same point as they were considered by this Court in SCA No. 8080/2003 and allied matters, which have been disposed of as per the decision dated 11-2-2004. The only distinguishing feature would be that in the earlier group of petitions, the learned Counsel appearing for the concerned respondent workman/employee had declared before the Court that if the workmen concerned are allowed to withdraw the amount, which is alreayd deposited, the concerned employee is not claiming the interest over the ordered amount of gratuity. In the present case, since nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent in spite of the service of notice of rule, the final order deserves to be modified accordingly. In the earlier group of petitions this Court had at para 10 it was observed as under:"10. IN view of the aforesaid, these petitions are allowed, and the orders passed by the controlling authority as well a