V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. The State has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2014 passed by respondent No. 2- Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act as well as the order dated 12.6.2014 passed by respondent No. 1-Appellate Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act). Heard learned AGP Mr. Bharat Vyas for the petitioners. Learned AGP submitted that respondent No. 3-workman was appointed as daily wager from 2.8.1986. He was remaining absent and, therefore, his services were terminated. Respondent No. 3, therefore, challenged the said action by raising dispute which was referred to the concerned Labour Court. The matter was settled between the petitioners and respondent No. 3-workman on 29.9.1999 and the said terms of settlement were produced before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, therefore, passed an order on 29.9.1999 wherein it was observed that the said reference is disposed off in view of the terms of settlement produced on record. Learned AGP thereafter submitted that the respondent No. 3 was reinstated in service and order to that effect came to be passed on 30.11.1999.

2. Learned AGP thereafter submitted that respondent No. 3 was superannuated on 30.6.2011. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, lodged his claim of gratuity. The said claim was ascertained by the petitioner and the amount was paid to the respondent No. 3. However, the respondent No. 3 disputed the calculation of the amount and, therefore, approached the respondent No. 2-Controlling authority by filing an application No. 29 of 2013. Respondent No. 3, in the said application, claimed the amount of gratuity from the date of his first appointment. Respondent No. 2-Controlling Authority granted the said application and directed the petitioners to make the payment by considering his first date of appointment i.e. 2.8.1986 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.6.2011.

3. Learned AGP Mr. Vyas thereafter contended that the petitioners preferred Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 1 under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972. Learned AGP has made the grievance that the Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal and on the ground that the petitioners have not deposited the amount as per the provisions contained in section 7 of the Gratuity Act. The petitioners have, therefore, no option but to file the present petition.

4. Learned AGP Mr. Vyas would contend that the respondent No. 2-Controlling Authority has wrongly considered the date of appointment i.e. 2.1.1986 for calculating the amount of gratuity. He has contended that the respondent No. 3 was terminated from the service in 1987 and thereafter the dispute was settled between the parties in the year 1999. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 3 has partly waived his backwages and he was not granted continuity of service at the time of reinstatement in view of the terms of the settlement placed before the Labour Court. Therefore, respondent No. 2-Controlling Authority ought to have considered that the respondent No. 3 was appointed from 1.11.1999 in view of the settlement and, therefore, respondent No. 2 has wrongly considered the services of the respondent No. 3 during the period between 1987 to 1999 for calculating the amount of gratuity.

5. Learned AGP Mr. Vyas thereafter contended that the respondent No. 1 has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay in filing the said appeal. Respondent No. 1 had not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the said order be quashed and set aside.

6. I have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned AGP. I have also gone through the material produced on record as we