IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16197 of 2025 ================================================================

RAJESHKUMAR HIRALAL RANA Versus THE J. B. AND BROTHERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

================================================================

Appearance:

MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 02/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the Controlling Authority, Surat under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) in Gratuity Case No. 186 of 2023 and the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 113 of 2024, whereby, the learned Authority has partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and modified the order passed by the Controlling Authority by directing the respondent No.1 to pay Rs.1,72,212/- with 10% simple interest.

2. Facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the petitioner was initially appointed in the services of the respondent No.1, however, he was terminated by the respondent No.1 on 31.12.2022, since the respondent No.1 had decided to close down the industry. Therefore, the petitioner sent Form.I seeking gratuity amount against respondent No.1 for Rs.2,58,058=00 with 10% simple interest. That, despite receiving Form.I, the gratuity amount was not paid and therefore, petitioner submitted Form.N before the Controlling Authority, Surat, whereby the Controlling Authority rejected the gratuity application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, whereby the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the Controlling Authority to decide the same afresh. That, thereafter, the Controlling Authority after hearing both the sides, passed an order dated 21.05.2024 in Gratuity Case No.186 of 2023, whereby the application of the petitioner came to be allowed and the respondent management was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,212/- with 10% simple interest. That, the respondent management challenged the order passed by Controlling Authority by filing Appeal No.113 of 2024, whereby the Appellate Authority partly allowed the Appeal of the respondent No.1 and directed the respondent management to pay a sum of Rs.1,72,212/- with 10% interest vide order dated 06.02.2025.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order and judgment passed by the learned Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. Heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Mishra has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Controlling authority as well as the Appellate authority are erroneous, illegal and contrary to the facts and records of the case. He has submitted that the respondent management has produced so-called settlement along with the resignation letter before the Controlling Authority, wherein it has been stated that the respondent management has paid Due wages, Bonus, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, Notice Pay, Service dues, Retrenchment compensation, over-time wages and difference of minimum wages. Thus, if all these dues are to be counted then it will be more than Rs.5 Lakhs, whereas the respondent management has paid a sum of Rs.1,07,794=00 by account payee cheque to the petitioner and thus, the aforesaid amount is not paid towards gratuity and therefore, the Controlling Authority ought to have directed the respondent management to pay gratuity amount as per application submitted by the petitioner and therefore, both the orders are required be modified by directing to respo