K V PATEL Vs. PRAHLAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. G.S. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the institution is receiving grant-in-aid and as the grants towards gratuity was not paid by the State Government, they have not paid the gratuity to the respondent No. 1 and therefore an application was also preferred before the controlling authority for impleadment of the State of Madhya Pradesh as one of the respondents, however no orders were passed on the application preferred by the present petitioner and on the contrary, an ex parte order has been passed directing payment of gratuity to respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26-6-2012.

(3.) On the other, the respondent No. 1, who is present in person has argued before this Court that the gratuity is being paid to other employees of the same educational institution and for no rhyme and reason, the gratuity was not paid to him, hence he was forced to file an application under section 10(1) of the Act of 1972 before the controlling authority. It has also been stated that a notice was served to the present petitioner and the present petitioner opted not to appear before the controlling authority and later on the application claiming gratuity was not opposed by the employer and therefore after recording the evidence and after verifying the service record of the respondent No. 1, the controlling authority has rightly directed the payment of gratuity in the matter. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.