^ Hi HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH: BILASWJR WritPetition No.128of 2004 Petitioner General Manager south Eastem Coalfields Ltel., Electrical & Mechanlcat Workshop, PO. Korba Coliiery, Distt. Korba (CG). Versus Respondent G. Fetix S/o. Late Felix Joseph, Reflred Turner-Mechlnist, Qr.No.1-B/68 Central Workshop Colony, PO Korba Colliery, Dsstt. Korba (CG). (Writ PeCtion under Article 226/227 of the ConsStution OS India) SB: Hon'bte Mr. SaUsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: ShriVivek Verma, counseiforlhepetitioner. Shri SumitVerma, counsel for ttie respondent. ORALORDER (Passedon this 4th dayofAugust, 2088 The peUtioner has flled this pefition challenging ttie order dated 4-11- 2003 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Grataity Act,1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bilaspur in PGA No. 17/2002, wherebythe appeal filed by the prtitioner was disraissed with a direction to the respondent to vacate the company's quarter wttin seven days after recehnng the amount of gratuity and abide bythe relevantservtee mles. 2) Leamed counsel appearing for the peUtioner submits that the peUtioner has already deposited Uie amount with the controlting authority on 4-1-2002 and thereafter the matter was pending consideration before the Appellate Authortty as stated above. The petitloner has approached this court against the order datect4-11-2003, on 11-1-20)4. 3) This Court, after hearing leamed counset appearing for the petitioner, passed the interim order, directing that the gratuity amount deposited by the petitloner before the Controlling Authority maynotbe allowed to be wittidrawn by the respondent until further orders. '-""usssiisaa-.KEtBPZ: ri •L- 4) Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent sutenits that ttiough Uie r^pondent was not allowed to withdraw the gratuity amount, but the respondent has already vacated ttie premises atlotted to him. Thus, it cannot be held that the respondent has not vacated the premises wittiin sewn days from Uie date of receipt of gratuity amount. The respondent coutd nof receh/e the gratuity amount on account of ottier reasons, therefore, the peBtoner is not entitled to charge any penal interest as the order <rf the Ap|3dlate Authorify was to vacate the premises within*seven days from the date cf receipt of the gratuityameunt. 5) ^•Sinw the premises has already been vacated, the re^»ondert is at liberty to withdraw the gratuity amount pending before the ControUing Auttiority. Thus, aceording to leamed counsel for the petffioner nrtWng survhres in the matter. 6) The peUUonis aceordingly dismissed. ConsequenUy, M (W) P.^to. 2^3 of 2005 stands disposed of. Sd/- . Satisli K. .Agnihstri Judge