IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4214 of 2011 The Zonal Manager, UCO Bank ..Vs.. S. Venkatachari and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Darda, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 30 t h August, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, allowing an application filed by the respondent no. 1, for condonation of delay in filing an application before the Controlling Authority for grant of gratuity. It is necessary to note that though the respondent no.1 was dismissed from service some time in the year 1991, the order of dismissal was challenged before this court and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the order of dismissal by dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1. During the pendency of the proceedings and also after the dismissal of the appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent no.1 applied to the petitioner bank for grant of terminal benefits such as provident fund, gratuity etc. Provident fund, it appears, was paid to the respondent no. 1 after 2007. It is then that the respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition in this court seeking the direction to the petitioner to pay the gratuity to the respondent no.1. This court permitted the respondent no.1 to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to take recourse to the remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Act. After the writ petition was withdrawn on 10.12.2009, the respondent no. 1 on 21.1.2010 filed an application before the Controlling Authority for grant of gratuity along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the application. The Controlling Authority was justified in condoning the delay in filing the application under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is necessary to note that the respondent no.1 was continuously asking for the payment of terminal benefits and the terminal benefits were paid after 2007, when the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of dismissal had attained finality. The respondent no.1 was granted provident fund but was not paid the gratuity and therefore the respondent no. 1 bonafide prosecuted the matter before the wrong forum by filing a writ petition bearing W.P. no. 883/2009. Immediately after the writ petition was withdrawn, the application for payment of gratuity under section 7 of the Act was filed by the respondent no.1. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the Controlling Authority was not justified in condoning the delay in filing the application. The controlling authority considered the decisions of various High Courts including this High Court to take a liberal view in the matter and to condone the delay in filing application. No fault can be found with the impugned order dated 14.5.2010, passed by the controlling authority. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 is not entitled to gratuity and his gratuity is forfeited is not relevant for deciding the issue involved in this writ petition. The only issue involved in this case pertains to the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the controlling authority condoning the delay in filing the application. It is needless to state that it would be now for the controlling authority to consider the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner about the non-entitlement of the respondent no.1 to receive the gratuity. Since the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority on 14.5.2010 is just and proper, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan