The employer has a statutory obligation to determine and pay gratuity regardless of application delays, and the nature of payment does not negate entitlement if service meets statutory criteria.

JUDGMENT :

(M. K. THAKKER, J.)

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned AGP Mr. Bhati waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 27.01.2025 in Gratuity Appeal No.123 of 2024 by which the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority in Gratuity Case No.8 of 2024 was affirmed and the petitioners were directed to pay the sum of Rs.9,44,717/- within a period of 30 days along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on aforesaid amount.

3. The case of the present petitioner is that the petitioner No.1 is a division of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 is a Doctor by profession, at whose behest the proceeding under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 was initiated. It is claimed by the respondent No.1 that he was engaged by erstwhile Saurashtra Chemicals ie. petitioner No.1 to provide the honorary service for the well-being of the workers and respective families and was paid honorarium to the tune of Rs.1,200/- per month. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent No.1 discharging duty only for one and half hours i.e from 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM from the date of his appointment i.e. 23.05.1985. For rest of day, the respondent was running his own dispensary situated in Porbandar on 08.01.2020. On reaching the age of 60 years, as per the practice of petitioner No.2, respondent No.1 was relieved from honorary service with effect from 31.01.2020. However, subsequently, the respondent No.1 and petitioner No.1 entered into the agreement for consultancy on 23.01.2020, wherein the respondent No.1 was to give the necessary assistance at the Medical Center of the Township of the petitioner No.1, which came to be renewed upto 31.03.2024. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has abruptly abandoned the agreement on 30.09.2023 and demanded the gratuity for the period of 10.03.1985 to 08.01.2020 on the basis of the Form No.I. The respondent No.1 has filed the application under Section 7(4)(b) of the Act before the learned controlling authority claiming the gratuity and as there was delay of more than 4 years in claiming the gratuity the respondent has also filed an application for condonation of delay along with the documents being Form No.N and the petitioner and the respondent No.1 have filed the affidavit in the proceedings and learned Controlling Authority, after considering the evidence adduced, has allowed the application, filed by the respondent for condonation of delay as well as claiming the gratuity and petitioners were directed to pay the amount of Rs.9,44717/- within a period of 30 days at the rate of 10% interest, which was challenged before learned Appellate Authority by way of filing the appeal, which was also dismissed affirming the order passed by the learned Controlling Authority, which is the subject matter of the challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the respondent No.1.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioners has submitted that learned Controlling Authority has committed error in passing the order in the main application along with the condoning the delay of 1440 days in filing the application before the learned Controlling authority. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that learned Controlling Authority ought to have decided the application for condonation of delay first and thereafter, ought to have adjudicated the claim on merits. Relying on the decision rendered by the High Court of the Madras in the case of M. Devarajulu V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Labour and Others reported in 1992 SCC Online Mad 546 Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that learned Controlling Authority must have to condone the dela