D.N. Patel, J.

When the matter is called out, counsel for the appellants is present and argued out the case at length. No body appears on behalf of respondents.

2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent is a workman, within the meaning of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that CBI has instituted a case against the respondent and charge sheet has also been filed and as per section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, management has all power, jurisdiction and authority to withhold the gratuity and hence, an speaking and detailed order has been passed on 13th January, 2015 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Nonetheless, the amount of gratuity has already been deposited before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that application for withdrawal of the amount has been preferred by the respondent-workman, in which the reply has already been filed by this appellant for not to allow withdrawal of the amount of gratuity, in view of sub section 6 of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 an