[1] Heard Mr.K. M. Patel, learned senior counsel with Mr.J.M.Patel, learned advocates for the petitioners and Ms.Vinita Vinayak and Mrs.Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned advocates for the respondents. Having regard to the submissions, Rule.

[1.1] In view of the fact that in all the petitions, a common order has been impugned which relates to controversy concerning gratuity, Rule is made returnable forthwith and at the request and with the consent of all concerned, the petitions are taken upon for final hearing. Mrs.Sangeeta N. Pahwa and Ms.Vinita Vinayak, learned advocates for the respondents have waived service of notice of Rule. Since the original order of adjudicating authority is a common order for all applications and as all the petitions raise common issues, they all are decided by this common judgment and order.

[1.2] In the captioned group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged a common order dated 29th October, 2007, in Gratuity Applications No.20 of 2007 to 68 of 2007, passed by the Controlling Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter be referred to as the Act ) whereby the Controlling Authority has directed the petitioner Company to pay amount towards gratuity to the respondent - workmen along with simple interest at the rate of 6% till 31st December, 2007 and for the period from 1st January, 2008 until the date of actual payment @ 10%. The Controlling Authority has also directed that the interest at the rate of 10% should be calculated on the composite amount by taking into account the principal amount and interest at the rate of 6% until 31st December, 2007. The Controlling Authority has also held the Managing Director i.e the petitioner No.2 personally liable to pay the dues to the respondent - workmen.

[1.3] Aggrieved by the said order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioners preferred appeals under Section 7(7) of the Act. By communication dated 10th March, 2008, the petitioners were conveyed that in view of non-compliance with the condition precedent requiring pre-deposit of the decreed amount, the appeals cannot be entertained and, therefore, appeals were returned / rejected. It appears that review applications were also preferred, however, by the same communication dated 10th Marcy, 2008, the petitioners have been informed that in view of scope of Section 11(4) the applications are not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners are before this Court.

[2] The facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are in narrow compass. They are -

[2.1] The respondents approached the Controlling Authority alleging non-payment of the amount payable towards gratuity. Some of the applications, out of the total 49 applications before the Controlling Authority, were filed by persons claiming to be the heirs of the employees who had expired either during their employment or after their retirement.

[2.2] All the applications were registered by the Controlling Authority and notices for hearing were issued in response to which the petitioners appeared and opposed the applications on various grounds which are summarized by the Controlling Authority in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order.

[2.3] After considering the contentions of contesting parties, the Controlling Authority came to the conclusion that the gratuity amount had become payable and the applicants were entitled to claim and receive the amounts towards gratuity in accordance with the Act. Consequently, on the basis of the relevant details (such as respective dates of appointment, dates of retirement / death, last drawn wage and total number of years of the service put in by the workman), as was available on record the Controlling Authority passed the order holding inter alia that the petitioner Company was liable to pay gratuity to the claimants and that in view of the delay being caused by, the petitioner Company was also liable to pay interest. Consequently, the Controlling Authority passed