fe^% o"''\6 3II^t9it1^TO' 'cPff 3fTIc^[ Si+ii^ 3^q' '<iW\Vi^, ®Tfl<H'l(o,Rlrilti^ .MA.C:9--^&.30- an^r Tigg; Cpf^n^) WI. 200 i^iTW^iteisii^r ct»i<i^<iliHw^t^^^ <R<^$i< ^sffiw^n^T PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Versits 1. 2. (Writ Petition under Sinale Bench: Hob 02-01.2008:- Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Ad|i for the petitioner. Heard. By this writ petition unde^ petitioner has questioned leg{ Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through Commissioner, Municipat Corporation Bhilai, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) The Appellate Auttiority, (Under Payment of Gratuity Act)-Cum- Deputy Labour Commissioner, ChhatUsgarh Region, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Controlting Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, Labour Division, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) P.R. Choudhary, son of Late S.B. Choudhary, resident of Professor Colony, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Disfrict Durg (Chhattisgarh) Municipal Corporatton Bilaspur, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Distrtet Bilaspur (C.G.) Artjcle 227 of the Constitution of India) 'ble Mr.Jystice L.C. Bhadoo 'ocate with Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate Artfele 227 of the Constitution of India, the itity and correctness of the order dated te—78 311^1ff W 'cWT OTf^f sbtti4t TEST ^l-tlrt-il, »Tl1y'ic,Rioiuy WERW •amraT ^':.e.o£.^2°/< an^yr'<Rq? C'pf^^t) "^. 200 29.10.2007, whereby and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19| the appeal preferred by the pej contemplated under Section 7 c|f petitioner. Proviso to sub-section (7)| that no appeal by an employef' preferring the appeal, the appj controlting auttiority to the effecf amount equat to the amount of section (4), or deposits with the Admittedly, while filing authority no payment as Section 7 of the Act, 1972 was has dismissed the appeal. Leamed counsel for the p|e i.e. Rs,1,66,624/- was deposit£|d through cheque. Admrttedly, till the date gratuity as contemplated under p( sub-section (4) of the Act, 1972 Perusal of the order shows that said amountwas not made circumstances, appellate authoritlr the impugned order. The Article 227ofthe Constitution of wherejunder the tearned appellate authority under 72 (fbr short the Act, 1972') has dismissed jitioner on the ground that compliance has the Act, 1972 has not been made by the <1>fflfa<fl'l tlFRlf '^,fe1c^ <I<qt$l< ^ <»ifa^<HI^<I 1 of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 contemplates shatl be admitted unless at the time of illant either produces a certificate of the Piatthe appellant has deposited wUh him an iratuity recjuired to be deposited under sub- •at)pellate authority such amount. appeal against the order of controlling contentplated under proviso to sub-section (7) of somplied with, therefore, appellate authority pletitioner argued that Uie amount <rf gratuity on 11.12. 2007 before respondent No.2 ()f hearing i.e. 29.10.2007 the amount of toviso to sub-section (7) of Section 7 as also |was not deposited by the petitioner herein. ^ven prayer for granting time to deposit the the^ppeltate authorify, therefore, in the was not left with any altematwe but topass jurisdiction of the High Court uncter India is restrictive in the sense that it is to be beftlre supe(visory ~^ XI^C—78 3^T '^l-Mlrt'M, yiTfl'M'IS, IsKSWy Miydl *NI* W^ 200 3d^?r Traq; (1jzrf5^r) •K|S!|I ?!lfil-li«h VS wAv StXliqi Anrit ^TOR ^ltet SII^t -^ invoked only to correct errors 6f ji^ri has not committed anyjurisdictiorlal Therefore, 1 am of the and it is herby dismissed at the »fji^risdiction. 1 find that the appellate authority error in passing the impugned order. optiion that this petition is liable to dismissed a<(mission stage itself. <4>l<lfd'4l'l *<w;i? ^l^'st' <Rflt$f< '^'siRw^n^T Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge