K.M. THAKER, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In the petition the petitioner has prayed, inter-alia, that:-

“16(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.5.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2010 (Annexure-A) as well as the order dated 26.9.2008 and order dated 10.6.2009 passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No. 101 of 2008 (Annexure-B Colly) and further be pleased to direct the Appellate Authority to restore the Appeal as well as the Application to its file and to decide the same in accordance with law for the reasons stated in the memo of petition and in the interest of justice and fairness of things;

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.5.2010 passed by Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal filed by present petitioner on the ground that the Appeal was filed after expiry of prescribed limit.

4. So far as factual background is concerned it has merged from the material on record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner and the respondent that the respondent demanded gratuity from the petitioner on the ground that though he had worked for 5 years with the company and though he fulfilled eligibility criteria, the employer (i.e. present petitioner) did not pay gratuity. Initially the claimant demanded gratuity from the employer by submitting application in prescribed form. The said request was not accepted by the petitioner. Therefore the claimant (respondent herein) filed gratuity claim application before the controlling authority. The said gratuity claim application was registered by controlling authority as Gratuity Application No. 101/08. The controlling authority considered factual aspects narrated by the claimant in his application and the details mentioned by the employer in its reply/written submissions and reached to the conclusion that the claimant had worked continuously with the employer for 19 years and his average drawn salary per day was Rs.480.75 and the claimant was entitled for gratuity on that basis. The controlling authority accordingly quantified amount payable to the claimant towards gratuity vide order dated 26.9.2008

5. The employer felt aggrieved by the said order. However, despite the fact that statutory alternative remedy by way of Appeal was available against the order passed by the controlling authority the petitioner employer did not avail said remedy and instead filed petition in High Court.

6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that after the controlling authority passed order dated 26.9.2008, inadvertent typographical error in the final quantification of the amount payable to the claimant was brought to the notice of the controlling authority and it was mentioned that instead of mentioning Rs.1,37,019/- the authority had mentioned Rs.1,70,13.15. In that view of the matter, the controlling authority passed order dated 10.6.2009 rectifying the mistake. Thereafter, the employer, feeling aggrieved by the controlling authority's order, filed writ petition somewhere in July 2009 which was registered as SCA No. 11325 of 2009.

7. The petitioner subsequently was permitted to withdraw the petition with a view to availing statutory alternative remedy i.e. with a view to filing appeal before the appellate authority. Consequently said petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.1.2010 passed by this Court in SCA No. 11325 of 2009. Thereafter the petitioner employer filed appeal before appellate authority. It appears that the petitioner herein filed appeal before controlling authority on or around 9.3.2010 The appellate authority considered the