Tapen Sen, J.

1. In this Writ Application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.1.2000 (Annexure 6) passed by the respondent No. 1 (Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad-cum-Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) in P.G. Appeal No. 29/99 by which the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed and the order of the Controlling Authority passed on 28.4.1999 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5020.00 (Rupees five thousand twenty only) together with ten percent simple interest.

2. The petitioner further prays for quashing the notice dated 9/10.3.2000 (Annexure 7) by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi-cum- Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay the aforementioned amount within thirty days.

3. According to the petitioner, the order of the appellate authority is not only contrary to the order of the original fact finding Court (the Industrial Tribunal) which justified the dismissal of the respondent No. 3, but also against the orders of the High Court passed firstly in the Writ Application and then in the Letters Patent Appeal upholding the said dismissal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent No. 3 having been dismissed from service, the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act could not have been made applicable and that too, when there was no evidence before the appellate authority in coming to a different finding contrary to the finding of the Tribunal.

4. The petitioner in the instant case is the Management and have stated that the respondent No. 3 was its employee and was working in the capacity of a Mechanic. On 4.2.1979, at about 8.30 a.m. he indulged himself in riotous activity and stopped one Mahavir Ram Verma with a dagger at the main entrance. When others tried to intervene they were also stabbed. This was considered to be a gross misconduct punishable under Clause 24(B)(G) read with Clause 24(B)(J) of the Certified Standing orders of the Company. Consequently, a charge sheet was served and upon receipt of cause filed by him and upon a finding that it was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The further case of the petitioner is that all opportunity was given to him and ultimately, the Management terminated him as charges were found to be proved and he was accordingly issued with an order of discharge on 22,4.1979 vide Annexure 1.

5. Being aggrieved the respondent No. 3 invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which culminated in a reference and by an award dated 14.9.1987 (Annexure 2) the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal No. 2 held that the action of the Management in dismissing the respondent No. 3 from services was justified and consequently he was not entitled to any relief.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 then filed a Writ Application being CWJC No. 1911 of 1987 (R) before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court. By Judgment/order dated 6.9.1995 (Annexure 3), the High Court dismissed the Writ Application, thereby upholding the Award.

7. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 thereafter filed a Letters Patent Ap- peal being LPA No. 310 of 1995(R) before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and by an Order/Judgment dated 18.4.1996 (Annexure 4) a Division Bench also dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal.

8. The Petitioner contends that both the two orders i.e., the one passed by the tribunal and the other by the High Court in the Writ Application were reasoned Judgments and every aspect was taken into consideration and finally, it was concluded that the workman was rightly dismissed from service,

9. The Petitioner further contends that after dismissal of the LPA, the Award passed by the Tribunal attained finality, but even thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 filed an application on 27.2.1998 before the controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for a direction upon the Petitioner to compute th