JUDGMENT

Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioner (Chander Shekhar Sharma) has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 18.03.1991 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act) whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.3 (M/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd.) against the order dated 31.01.1990 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2.(Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act), was allowed and the petitioner was held not entitled to gratuity.

It is noted that vide order dated 31.01.1990 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 (Controlling Authority), an application filed by the petitioner for payment of gratuity was allowed and respondent No. 3 (M/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd.) was directed to pay to the petitioner, an amount of Rs. 3,465/- alongwith 10% interest with effect from 11.02.1988.

2. Briefly, the petitioner was employed by M/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd. (Respondent No. 3), on 30.05.1982 and was drawing a salary of Rs.1001/- per month when he resigned from his job on 10.02.1988 and thus he served the respondent No. 3 for a period of 05 years 08 months and 20 days.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after his resignation was accepted, he made a demand for payment of gratuity in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act, 1972') as the Respondent No. 3 (M/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd.) had been paying gratuity to the employees who had resigned from their service after completing five years of continuous service in terms of Section 4 (1)(b) of the Act, 1972. Petitioner claimed that one Sh. H.S. Kapoor, Junior Technical Assistant of Watch Assembly Unit and Sh. Mool Chand, TV Department, who resigned from job after completing five years of service, were paid gratuity by respondent No. 3.

4. It appears that respondent No.3 did not accept the request of the petitioner, whereupon he filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972, for payment of gratuity. The claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity amount was contested by respondent No.3 (M/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd.). From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1) Whether the application has been made within the prescribed time.

2) Whether the applicant is entitled for gratuity.

3) Relief.

5. The Controlling Authority (under the Payment of Gratuity Act), allowed the application filed by petitioner for payment of gratuity vide order dated 31.01.1990 (Annexure P-1) and respondent No.3 (M/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd.) was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,465/- alongwith 10% interest with effect from 11.02.1988.

6. Being dis-satisfied with the order dated 31.01.1990 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Controlling Authority; respondent No. 3 (M/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd.) filed an appeal under sub-section (7) of section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act before respondent No. 1 (Appellate Authority).

7. The Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) vide its order dated 18.03.1991 (Annexure P-2) allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.3 (M/s J.C.T. Electronics Ltd.) by setting aside the order dated 31.01.1990 (Annexure P-1) and as a consequence thereof, the application of the petitioner for payment of gratuity was dismissed.

8. In the above-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this court.

9. Upon issuance of notice in this case, no one appeared for the respondents despite service, accordingly,