IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2921 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 09, 2011. Gursev Singh .....Petitioner versus Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Parveen K.Kataria, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner moved an application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') against respondent No.2-mill alleging non-payment of gratuity. His application was allowed by the Controlling Authority under the Act but the Appellate Authority has set-aside the said order and dismissed the petitioner's application after holding that he failed to prove his employment with the respondent-mill for a minimum period of five years. The Appellate Authority held that the petitioner served the respondent No.2-mill from 1.11.1994 to 23.11.1996 only. Some of the documents relied upon by the petitioner have been discarded being self-contradictory. CWP No.2921 of 2010 [2] The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2-mill is lying closed since the year 1999 and claims to have no record for the period of alleged employment of the petitioner. The onus was obviously on the petitioner to prove his employment for a period of minimum five years. One of the document relied upon by the petitioner which requires serious consideration is a photocopy of his Pass-Book of Provident Fund Account (Annexure P-5) which does indicate as if he was in employment with the respondent-mill in the years 1991-1992 also. The litmus test would still be to prove whether the petitioner worked with the respondent-mill for a period of five years or not? While the reasoning of the Appellate Authority for over-looking the Pass-Book of the Provident Fund Account of the petitioner may have fallen short of convincing no definite opinion at the same time can be formed regarding the actual period of employment of the petitioner. Taking into totality of the circumstances, I set-aside both the orders passed by the 'Controlling Authority' as well as the 'Appellate Authority' and remit the matter to the Controlling Authority for afresh decision after giving not more than two opportunities to the petitioner to lead additional evidence, if any, to prove his employment for more than five years with respondent No.2-mill. The management of the mill shall also be at liberty to lead evidence and counter his claim for which two CWP No.2921 of 2010 [3] opportunities shall be given to it also. The Controlling Authority shall be required to return a specific finding as to whether or not the petitioner remained in service of respondent No.2-mill for more than five years. The needful shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the Controlling Authority on 5.12.2011. Dasti. November 09, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE