( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate mr. Mehui Sharad Shah for petitioner - Nagarpalika.

( 2 ) BY way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Controlling Authority dated 6. 3. 2009 in Gratuity Application No. 98 of 2008 and also the order passed by appellate Authority, Baroda dated 7. 9. 2009.

( 3 ) THE Controlling Authority has directed to present petitioner to pay difference of gratuity amount of rs. 60,494/- and on delayed payment of gratuity amount with 10% simple interest within a period of 30 days from date of receiving the order of controlling Authority.

3. 1 The appellate Authority has also not entertained the appeal because no amount is deposited along with appeal before Controlling Authority by petitioner. Therefore, appeal came to be disposed of because pre-condition for filing appeal is not complied with by petitioner.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Shah has raised number of contentions before this Court being a public Authority. The respondent No. 1 was retired on 30. 6. 2003 as a Clerk of Tax Department on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner had paid amount of gratuity of Rs. 1,13,381/- in the year 2005 by two installments; one was paid rs. 50,000/- on 20. 6. 2005 and another of Rs. 67,381/- dated 9. 11. 2005. Then after a period of 5 years of his retirement, respondent moved an application before Controlling authority under the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act")on 18. 11. 2008 claiming difference of gratuity amount after accepting retiral benefits. The respondent No. 1 was paid retiral benefits and gratuity considering his revision of pay scale as per 5th Pay commission report and as per the bcsr Rules and as per the Payment of gratuity (Gujarat) Rules, 1973. The application was preferred by respondent on the ground that as per settlement award arrived between union and Nagarpalika in Reference (IT) No. 174 of 1974, the respondent is entitled 25 months' wages towards the gratuity in stead of 16 and 1/2 months' wages as per Rules. While getting other benefits, he has not referred the above settlement. The above settlement in reference (IT) No. 174 of 1974 was terminated by Nagarpalika following the procedure under Section 19 (2) (3) of the I. D. Act,1947 w. e. f. 4. 12. 2003. Therefore, he submitted that similar question arose in number of petitions namely SCA No. 608/2009, 610/2009, 611/2009, 642/2009 and 2853/2009 which are pending before this Court for final hearing. He further submitted that appellate Authority has to decide the matter on merits in stead of not entertaining the appeal because of amount is not deposited by petitioner along with appeal. He raised contention that there is a delay in filing gratuity application before Controlling authority and therefore, Controlling authority has committed gross error in entertaining such belated application filed by respondent. The claim which was based on award passed by industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT)No. 174 of 1974 which was terminated and therefore, the respondent is not entitled any benefits from said terminated award. He also submitted that Bombay Civil Services Rules are applicable and all benefits have been received by respondent under the provisions of BCSR Rules. Therefore, controlling Authority has committed gross error in granting difference of gratuity amount as per award passed by industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in reference (IT) No. 174 of 1974. In short, his submission is that once the award is terminated, it is ceased to operate between the parties. Meaning thereby that such award which was terminated having no legal effect which is to be considered and implemented by controlling Authority. Therefore, according to him, authorities below have committed an error in passing such orders which are under challenge.

4. 1 Learned Advocate Mr. Shah has relied upon decision of this Court in the case of GSRTC v. Karshan Meghji dabhi reported in 1997 II CLR 775. Relying upon aforesaid dec