ORDER :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

This group of petitions are filed by the State of Gujarat through the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division, Mahi Canal Colony, Petlad, District Anand along with Deputy Executive Engineer under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by respondent No.2, i.e. The Controlling Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) as well as the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by respondent No.1, i.e. The Appellate Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972).

3. A common question of law is involved in the present group of petitions. Therefore, they are taken up together for hearing. However, the facts stated in Special Civil Application No. 13532 of 2015 are discussed in the judgment.

4. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Janak Rawal for the petitioners.

5. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval submitted that respondent No.3 herein was working with petitioner No.2 as a daily wager from 1.1.1985. It is pointed out that in pursuance to the policy of the State Government reflected in Circular dated 17.10.1988, the services of respondent No.3 came to be regularised from 1.1.1996. Thereafter, respondent No.3 had performed his duties till the date of superannuation, i.e. 31.5.2009. When the amount of gratuity was paid to him, said workman having dissatisfied with the quantum, approached the Controlling Authority by filing Application No.26 of 2012. In the said application, he requested that the amount of gratuity is required to be calculated from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. from 1.1.1985 and not from 1.1.1996. Therefore, a demand was raised to consider his length of service from the date of his first appointment, i.e. from 1.1.1985. However, the case of the petitioners before respondent No.2 authority was that respondent No.3 was working as daily wager from 1.1.1985 to 1.1.1996, and the benefit as contemplated under the Circular dated 17.10.1988 issued by the State Government was given to the said workman, and his services were regularised with effect from 1.1.1996. The petitioners, therefore, calculated his services from the date of regularization, and the amount of gratuity was paid accordingly.

6. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval thereafter contended that respondent No.2 passed the impugned orders, whereby petitioners were directed to make the balance payment of gratuity amount by calculating the period of service of respondent No.3 from the date of his first appointment as a daily wager. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972 before respondent No.1 - appellate authority. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval would contend that respondent No.1 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners dismissed the said appeal by way of the impugned order, wherein it has been stated that the order passed by the Controlling Authority is required to be challenged within a period of 60 days, and the appellate authority is empowered to condone the delay of further period of 60 days, but since the appeal was filed after a period of one year, the same is not required to be entertained. Thus, the learned A.G.P. would contend that the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice. No reasons were assigned by the appellate authority and the appellate authority ought to have considered the reasons stated for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit by the petitioners, and thus the order passed by respondent No.1 - appellate authority is required to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Raval thereafter would contend that respondent No.1 has failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.3 workman was appointed as a daily wager on 1.1.1985, and the benefit of regularisation was given to him with effect from 1.1.1996 as per the policy of the Government, the respondent No.2 Cont