REGISTRAR Vs. MUKESHKUMAR BABULAL BORAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner setting aside an order passed by the Controlling Authority, Rajkot in Gratuity Application No.17 of 2016 dtd. 31/3/2017 and an order in Gratuity Appeal No.73 of 2017 dtd. 13/11/2017. By the order in the gratuity appeal, the order of the Controlling Authority was confirmed. The petitioner before this Court is the university, which is the employer of the respondent No.1.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Panjak R. Desai appearing for the petitioner has raised contentions that the order of the Appellate Authority is a non-speaking order and that despite the question was raised regarding non-completion of 240 days of continuous service, the Appellate Authority merely by observing that such issue was not raised before the Controlling Authority, dismissed the appeal. Learned advocate in support of his contention submitted that the respondent-workman was not entitled to the gratuity in view of the fact that during his service tenure between 2009 to 2016, the respondent- workman was permitted to attend higher education course for period of two years and therefore, requirement of having completed five years in service is not there in case of the respondent-workman. The other contention is that the respondent-workman was made the payment of gratuity in advance which was included in his salary slip and therefore, if now the Controlling Authority's order is maintained, than it would amount to respondent received twice the payment of gratuity. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the petitioner refers to a decision of this Court in case of Trustee Shri H.S.Talaviya, Charitable Trust, R.K.University v/s. Ashwinkumar H. Solanki in Special Civil Application No.17862 of 2021 dtd. 13/1/2022 to submit that the order of Controlling Authority ought to have been a reasoned order.

(3.) As against this, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workman by drawing attention of this Court to the findings given by the Controlling Authority submitted that the contention of the petitioner regarding advanced payment of gratuity was rejected on facts, wherein the Controlling Authority has proceeded to hold on the basis of evidence that there was interpolation in the document by writing down "including gratuity in the pay-slip of the respondent" and conclusion was given that such record has been interpolated. Learned advocate also submitted that the period of two years which the petitioner is contending not to be in service was also taken into consideration by the Controlling Authority and on facts concluded that on the basis of sponsorship certificate that the respondent was treated to be in continuous service as the petitioner itself had sponsored the respondent-workman for higher education.