ORDER

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“… declaring the order passed by the 3 rd respondent Appellate Authority under Payment of gratuity Act dated 15/06/2023 in Gratuity Appeal No. 1/2023 is against to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, and is in violation of the settled legal principles and consequently quash the same and to allow this writ Petition with costs in the interest of Justice and equity and pass ...”

2) Heard Sri C. Niranjan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri K. V. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent-employee was appointed in the petitioner’s Company on 29.10.2003 as System Analyst and his last drawn salary was Rs.28,236/-. Later, he resigned to the services of the petitioner Company on 16.08.2021 and accordingly relieved on 17.09.2021.

Thereafter, he was paid gratuity amount of Rs.2,28,060/- on 09.12.2021 and the same was received by the employee without any protest. Thus, there is compliance of provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act on the part of the petitioner. Despite the same, respondent No.1 filed an application before respondent No.2 i.e. the Controlling Authority and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad, vide P.G.Application No.48/48/2022-E3, claiming further gratuity amount of Rs.17,71,940/- with interest @ 10% per annum. Without considering the material on record and the judgments produced by the petitioner, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 17.11.2022 directing the petitioner Company to pay Rs.17,71,940/- together with interest amount of Rs.2,06,726/- total amount of Rs.19,78,666/-. Even the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner vide Gratuity Appeal No.1/2023 was dismissed by respondent No.3 without properly considering the grounds urged by the petitioner. Learned counsel has contended that the second and third respondents have failed to take into consideration that the services rendered and the salary lastly drawn by the employee in a different Company cannot be made the basis to determine the gratuity. Learned counsel has further contended that after his resignation in the petitioner Company, the employee has never worked in the premises of the petitioner during the period from 31.07.2017 to 03.09.2021 i.e. 4 years 8 months and 2 days) but worked at UK Company in PCS-LON on a secondment where he received salaries and other benefits from the said Company at London. Therefore, the Controlling Authority erred in treating the said period of 4 years 8 months and 2 days as continuous service and thereby erred in ordering gratuity on the last drawn salary of the employee which he earned at London in a different Company through UK Payroll in UK Sterling Pounds. The said anomaly was not considered by respondents 2 and 3.

Learned counsel has further contended that respondent No.1 took up the job at another Company at London during the period from 31.07.2017 to 03.09.2021 where he has received a salary of Rs.5,67,545/- per month, for which, he paid several taxes only at London. Therefore, the said amount cannot be taken as last drawn salary of the petitioner by converting the UK Sterling Pound to Indian Rupee, which the respondents 2 and 3 have failed to appreciate.

Learned counsel has strenuously contended that respondent No.2 being the quasi judicial authority has failed to record any evidence on behalf of the parties before passing the order and the same is in violation of mandatory provisions of Rules 11 and 13 of Payment of Gratuity Act and without considering the said material irregularities, respondent No.3, in a mechanical manner, has confirmed the orders of respondent No.2, which is totally perverse and therefore liable to be set a