SALASAR ORGANICS PVT. LTD. Vs. GOVINDBHAI SHIVABHAI GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned advocate Mr.K.R.Mishra waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-workman.

(2.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Modi appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the controlling authority since the initial order, which was passed on 10/7/2020 for payment of Rs.1,05,346.00 is ex parte since the petitioner did not remain present in the proceedings. He has submitted that the petitioner has also preferred a review application under the provision of rule 11(5) of the Payment of Gratuity (Gujarat) Rules, 1973 before the controlling authority for review the order being ex parte, which came to be registered as Review Application No.2 of 2020 in Gratuity Case/Application No.60 of 2019 however, the controlling authority has rejected the said review application and thereafter, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Ahmedabad challenging the aforesaid orders however, the same has been rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner has also deposited Rs.1,05,346.00, as ordered by the controlling authority. Thus, he has submitted that the matter may be remanded.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Mishra appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that it is true that the initial order passed by the controlling authority in Gratuity Case/Application No.60 of 2019 is ex parte however, subsequently, the petitioner had filed the review application as well as appeal, which have been decided after hearing the respective parties. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may not be disturbed.