1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 681/2011 M/s Mand Valley Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhirendra S. Barlinge 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. S.S. Ghate, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Pathak, the learned counsel for the Respondent no.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 21 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on 3/1/2011 holding that the Controlling Authority and ALC(C) had jurisdiction to deal with the claim petition filed by the respondent as the appropriate govt. in this case is the State Govt. as defined under the provisions of Sec. 2(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is the case of the petitioner that the appropriate govt. in this case is the State Govt. and is not the Central Govt. and the Controlling Authority will have no jurisdiction to deal with the claim petition filed by the respondent. It is however, not disputed by the parties and it is the common case of the parties that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act ought to have decided the issue as regards the appropriate government by granting an 2 opportunity to the parties to tender oral and documentary evidence on record as the said issue cannot be decided only on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Since the Controlling Authority has not decided the said issue by granting an opportunity to the parties to tender evidence on record, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Controlling Authority to decide the issue of jurisdiction and also the other issue in regard to the condonation of delay in filing the application and the entitlement of the respondent to receive the gratuity. Shri Ghate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the matter may be remanded to the Controlling Authority for deciding only the issue of condonation of delay and the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority on the basis of the evidence which would be tendered by the parties and the issue of entitlement of the respondents to receive the gratuity could be decided only in case the Controlling Authority finds that it has jurisdiction to decide the application. Shri Pathak, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, however, submits that it would not be just and proper to remand the matter to the Controlling Authority for a decision only on the preliminary issue as the parties would be required to tender evidence in two stages if this course is adopted. According to the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to direct the Controlling Authority to decide the issue of jurisdiction and delay along with the other issue 3 about the entitlement of the respondents to receive the gratuity as hardly any evidence needs to be tendered on the issue in regard to the entitlement of the respondent after the evidence is tendered on the other two issues. Since the Controlling Authority has not decided the issue of delay and the issue of jurisdiction after granting an opportunity to the parties to tender evidence in that regard, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Controlling Authority to decide the application filed by the respondent under section 4 & 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act on merits. While deciding the matter on merits, the Controlling Authority should also decide the issue of delay and the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority on the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties. Hence, the order passed by the Controlling Authority is set aside and the Controlling Authority is directed to decide the matter within a period of 8 months from the date of this order. The parties undertake to appear before the Authority on 5th of June, 2011 so that the issuance of individual notice to the parties could be dispensed with. The Controlling Authority should first decide the application for condonation of delay and then proceed to decide the matter on merits and also on the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan