The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of procedural requirements and jurisdictional issues in the context of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

The writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent passed in the appeal filed by the third respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity, "the Act").

1. The short facts leading to the passing of the impugned order by the first respondent are that the petitioner/Company has suspended its operation from 16. 1996. On an application filed by the third respondent for payment of gratuity in P.G.Case No.2 of 2004, the second respondent allowed the same by order dated 14. 2004. That happened to be an exparte order and on receipt of a copy of the said order, it is stated that an application was filed on 10. 2004 by the petitioner/company to condone the delay and set aside the exparte order dated 14. 2004. The condone delay application as well as the application to set aside the exparte order came to be allowed by the second respondent on 212. 2004 on payment of cost of Rs.300/- to the third respondent. It is stated that the petitioner has paid the said cost to the third respondent and the P.G.Case No.2 of 2004 was restored to the file of the second respondent.

2. 2. It was the case of the petitioner before the second respondent that the claim of gratuity by the third respondent for the period from 25. 1958 to 33. 1990 is not permissible and the third respondent ceased to be an employee from 12. 1985 due to abandonment and cessation; and that the third respondent challenged the same by filing I.D.No.317 of 1985 which was allowed by award dated 211. 1989 by ordering reinstatement with backwages and other benefits and the petitioner has challenged the same in W.P.No.18159 of 1990 and this Court, by order dated 211. 2000, has set aside the said award and it is stated that as against the said order writ appeal has been filed and the same is pending.

2. 3. The second respondent passed orders on 312. 2006 in P.G.Case No.2 of 2004 dismissing the application of the third respondent on the ground that since writ appeal is pending no further order can be passed. It was against the said order of the second respondent dated 312. 2006, the third respondent has filed P.G.Appeal No.13 of 2007. By the impugned order dated 110. 2007, the first respondent, while dealing with the appeal filed by the third respondent against the final order passed by the second respondent dated 312. 2006 which was after condonation of delay in filing a petition to set aside the exparte order, held that the second respondent was not justified in condoning the delay and setting aside the exparte order dated 14. 2004, since the application of the petitioner to set aside the exparte order is belated and directed that the petitioner should pay the gratuity to the third respondent in terms of the order of the second respondent dated 14. 2004 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

3. The impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 110. 2007 is challenged on various grounds, including that the third respondent, who has received the cost in the application filed by the petitioner earlier to set aside the exparte order passed by the second respondent dated 14. 2004, has not challenged the said order by his conduct of receiving the cost and thereafter, the second respondent has passed the order in P.G.Case No.2 of 2004 on merits dismissing the same on 312. 2006 and in the appeal filed by the third respondent against the merit of the final order dated 312. 2006 passed by the second respondent, the first respondent ought not to have reopened the original order dated 14. 2004 which is no more in existence by virtue of the subsequent final order dated 312. 2006 and therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent is beyond jurisdiction.

4. On a reference to the impugned order of the first respondent passed under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act as an Appellate Authority and in the undisputable facts it is clear that originally the third respondent filed P.G.Case No.2 of 2004 demanding gratuity amount of Rs.