KHEDAWALA CALENDER FACTORY THRO' PROPRIETOR Vs. SABIRBHAI GANIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.Yogen N. Pandya, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Kkashyap Pujara, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.

(2.) THE present petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the respondent No.3-the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No.104 of 2011, the order dated 12.11.2011 passed by the respondent No.3-the Controlling Authority in Review Application and the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the respondent No.2-Appellate Authority in Appeal No.131 of 2011.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Controlling Authority ought to have taken into consideration that there is a delay in claiming the gratuity by respondent No.1. Unless and until the delay is condoned in preferring the application, the main application should not be decided on merits. Respondent No.1 has claimed the gratuity for the period from 1977 to 01.06.2002, but the said period is not proper because of the petitioner establishment itself is registered in the year 1983. The Controlling Authority ought to have taken into consideration that the communication dated 25.10.2011 issued by the Employee's Fund Organization, Ahmedabad. From the bare perusal of the communication dated 25.10.2011, it reveals that respondent no.1 was engaged on 01.05.1984. Respondent No.1 has claimed the amount of gratuity by producing incorrect fact in the application. Therefore, the present respondent no.1 is not entitled for the amount of gratuity as claimed in the gratuity application. The petitioner establishment itself is registered in the year 1983, the question of appointment of respondent No.1, in the year 1977 would not arise. The impugned order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Case No.104 of 2011 is contrary to the provisions of law.