1. The petitioner Jodhpur Institute of Engineering and Technology is before this Court aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Jaipur dated 15.02.2023, whereby quasi-judicial order passed by the Joint Labour Commissioner (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) dated 03.03.2022, directing the petitioner institute to pay the gratuity to the husband of respondent No.4, who superannuated from the post of Registrar was upheld. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 12.07.2022, passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by which the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.03.2022 was dismissed.

2. The conceded facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner-institute in its petition, are as follows:-

2.1 The husband of respondent No.4, viz., Rakesh Kothari, filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 against the petitioner seeking direction for payment of gratuity. Notices were issued and were served upon the petitioner but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and issued direction under SEction 7(3)(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.11,55,375/- with interest and also ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.2 Since the aforesaid order was passed ex-parte, therefore, the petitioner did not come to know about the same. Upon gaining knowledge of the same, the petitioner moved an application before the Controlling Authority for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.03.2022. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2022.

2.3. In the interregnum, the petitioner also filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8462/2022, wherein this Court, vide order dated 05.07.2022, directed the Controlling Authority to decide the pending application filed for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.03.2022. The writ petition aforesaid was dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2022 but a liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 03.03.2022 by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner filed appeal before the learned Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2023.

2.4 Hence, this petition.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent No.4, (widow of deceased employee). During the pendency of the proceedings, her husband, who served as Registrar expired after unsuccessfully battling with the terminal cancer.

4. The sum and substance of the argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner-institute is that the Controlling Authority passed the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 without hearing the petitioner-institute or its counsel. The same was upheld without due application of mind by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.07.2022, which is also assailed herein.

5. At the very thresh hold, having seen the merits of the case, I am unable to persuade myself with the stand taken by the petitioner-institute. No doubt, at the first instance, the petitioner may not have been heard by the Controlling Authority but subsequently, it challenged the said order before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority passed the order after hearing both the parties. Same is premised on the reasoning that since the appeal was filed after a delay of more than 120 days it had to be dismissed. I am in agreement with the reasons assigned therein. Moreover, it transpires that the order passed by the Controlling Authority has already been implemented. The gratuity amount stands disbursed.

6. Qua service/knowledge