JUDGMENT :

(Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 thereby allowing the claim preferred by respondent and granting gratuity of Rs. 216753/- for a period the husband of the claimant has worked with the petitioner.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the husband of respondent No. 2 late Rama was initially appointed on the post of Master Potter in the Pottery Section in the petitioner's organization by means of order dated 03.12.1982 on consolidated salary of Rs. 325/-per month. It has been stated that services of husband of respondent No. 2 were terminated by order dated 18.08.2000. Subsequently from 26.05.2003 he was re-engaged on salary of Rs. 1500/-per month on the post of Chowkidar/Potter on contractual basis upto 05.11.2013.

4. The dispute in the present case relates to non-payment of the amount of gratuity to the husband of respondent No. 2 in regard to which a claim was filed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority. In the claim, it was stated that the husband of respondent No. 2 was in continuous services of petitioners from 03.12.1982 till his superannuation on 05.11.2013 i.e. for a period of 31 years and during the said period he was receiving salary from the petitioner and lastly he was receiving Rs. 12000/-per month, and was therefore entitled to gratuity which has illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the petitioner.

5. Notices were issued to the petitioner who was put in appearance and a written statement was filed by them opposing the claim of respondent No. 2. It has been fairly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that after filing of the written statement their counsel never appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Controlling Authority.

6. In the said order, the Controlling Authority has recorded that there is no dispute with regard to appointment of husband of respondent No. 2 but the claim of respondent No. 2 has been partly accepted to the extent that the services of husband of respondent No. 2 were terminated on 18.08.2000 and subsequently he was re-engaged on contractual basis from 26.05.2003 till 05.11.2013.

7. The contention of petitioner has been accepted to the extent that husband of respondent No. 2 had rendered 28 years 01 month and 24 days of services. With regard to last salary drawn by husband of respondent No. 2, it was stated by the petitioners in the written statement that he was receiving only Rs. 4,000/-per month instead of Rs. 12,000/-per month as claimed by respondent No. 2. In this regard the Controlling Authority has relied upon the evidence adduced by respondent No. 2 where a cheque was issued by petitioner in favour of respondent No. 2 holding the same to be on account of wages paid to husband of respondent No. 2 and accepted that he was receiving Rs. 8500/-per month and consequently quantified the amount of gratuity to be paid to him on the said basis.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner in the present writ petition has disputed only the quantum of the salary on the basis of which the amount of gratuity has been granted by the Controlling Authority by means of impugned order dated 15.03.2021. He further stated that in his written statement, the petitioner has clearly stated that husband of respondent No. 2 was receiving only Rs. 4000/-per month while the Controlling Authority in most illegal and arbitrary manner has allowed the claim of husband of respondent No. 2 treating his montly salary to be Rs. 8500/-per month. In this regard it is noticed that evidence was led by the respondent No. 2 and also documents were furnished by them including the cheque indicating that husband of respondent No. 2 was receiving Rs. 8500/-per month as sal