LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-392

SCHOL OF ENGINEERING Vs. JIGNESH SHAMBUBHAI VISHPARA

Decided On January 17, 2022
Schol Of Engineering Appellant
V/S
Jignesh Shambubhai Vishpara Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 31/12/2020 passed by the Controlling Authority, Rajkot in Gratuity Application No.108 of 2019 and also the order dtd. 27/4/2021 passed by the Appellate Authority in Gratuity Appeal No.18 of 2021.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Pankaj Desai appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority is required to be quashed and set aside since the same is illegal and de hors the provision of law. He has submitted that the respondent-employee had filed an application before the Controlling Authority being Gratuity Application No.108 of 2019 and had demanded an amount of Rs.3,48,410.00 and after hearing the present petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted by him that the impugned order is not a speaking order and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. Similarly, it is submitted by him that the Appellate Authority did not decide the other defense raised by the petitioner-College that the definition of an employee as defined under Sec. 2F of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act") will not attract in the case of the petitioner. No further submissions are advanced.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Jeet Rajyaguru appearing for the respondent-employee has submitted that the petitioner has not raised any contentions before the Controlling Authority and after considering the application of the respondent, the Controlling Authority has passed the order dtd. 31/12/2020 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,48,410.00 towards gratuity. He has submitted that the respondent was working as a Librarian since 13/7/2006 and thereafter, resigned on 28/12/2018 and he filed an application on 3/8/2019 claiming the gratuity amount, which has been precisely allowed by the Controlling Authority after hearing both the sides. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may not be set aside.