$~35

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11251/2015 & CM APP. 29330/2015

M/S CSAT SYSTEM (P) LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Saurabh Shaudilya , Adv.

versus

APPELLANT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF

GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Kailash Sharma and Ms.

Pushpanjali Tripathi, Advs. with Mr.

Shiv Pandey.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, seeking quashing of the order dated 21.10.2015 (herein after ‘Impugned order I’) passed by the learned Appellate Authority and the order dated 10.12.2014 (herein after ‘Impugned order II’) passed by the Controlling Authority (herein after ‘CA’), under the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (herein after ‘the Act’).

2. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the sole question involved in the present Writ is whether the ‘CA’ and the Appellate Authority who have passed the Impugned order(s), were the competent

authorities in the present case or not.

3. The contention of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner, being an establishment, has its branches/offices in different states. On a bare

perusal of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act, it is evident that the appropriate Government is the Central Government; consequently, the ‘CA’ ought to be an authority appointed by the Central Government and not by the State Government. Whereas, in the present case the Impugned order was passed by the ‘CA’ appointed by the State Government. Therefore, it is submitted that the Impugned order(s) suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction which can be rectified at the stage of Writ Petition only. Hence, it is prayed that the Impugned order(s) be set aside.

4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that, Petitioner has not raised any issue regarding jurisdiction whatsoever, neither in the pleading(s) nor in evidence(s), but however one such issue of jurisdiction was framed by the ‘CA’ which was decided Vide order dated 10^th December, 2014 in favour of the workman i.e., the Respondent No. 3 herein. Further, it was held that the ‘CA’ had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

5. Subsequently, learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jeewanlal Ltd. and Others v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act & Others, (1984) 4 SCC 356, and has contended that, in view of the said judgment, the ‘CA’ has rightly adjudicated the issue/dispute. It is further submitted that the ‘CA’ possessed the requisite jurisdiction to decide the issue/dispute. Consequently, it is urged that nothing survives for consideration in the present Writ Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Furthermore, it is admitted by both the parties, that all the amount which was due against the workman had already been released in the favour of the workman.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the judgment in Jeewanlal (supra) in fact lends support to the case of the Petitioner rather than that of Respondent.

8. Arguments heard, Orders reserved.

SHAIL JAIN, J JANUARY 12, 2026/kp/HP