HIGH COURI‘ OF CHHA‘i TISGARH AT BILASPUR W P No 2614 ofgm Raghuraj son of Bhukalu Singh aged about 65 years PETITIONER Ward No. 10 Near House. 9f Chhote'lal Sahu (Akbar) Rajnandgaon (MP) Now Chh’attisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. General Manager BNC Mills Rajnandgaon (MP) - 2 controllmg Authonty under the Payment of Gratmty V Act cum Labour omcer Rajnandgaon (LG) 3 Appellate Authonty under the Payment of Gratuity Act cum Deputy Labour Comnnssmncr (CG), Ralpur (CG) a _ (WRI'I PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF Hi}: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (5B Hon'ble Mr Saush K.Mam J) W ~ 1‘ Preaent : ‘ Advocate Shn H B Agrawal for the petmoner bemor Advocate withrMs. Rinki Tamrakar, Shn N K Vyas Advocate for the respondent No l u ORAL ORDER (Passed on 315i aiay ofJuly, 2m) 1, By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 31.102001 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Controlling Authority and Labour. Other, Rajnandgaon, under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act, 1972), and order dated 09.08.2002 (Annexure P/lQ), passed by the Appellate Authority and Deputy Labour Commissioner, 'Raipur, in Appeal No. 49/PGA/2001, whereby, the petitioner has been granted gratuity from the date of his appointment i.e. 16.1 1 .1968 to the a date ofretirement iirom service i.e. 24.04.1993. 2. The indisputable facts in nutshell are that according to authorities below the petitioner was appomted on 16 ll 68 and has worked till 24 04 93 1 e the age of superannuation Fhe petitioner has worked for a / / \ w?” g/ period of 24 years. After calculation, a sum of Rs‘ 23,738.40/— was dirccted to be paid as gratuity to the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, by order dated 09.08.2002 » (Annexure P/lO), affirmed the findings recorded by the controlling authority and dismissed the appeal. Thus, this petition. 4. The ground of challenge before this Court is that the order has been passed on the basis of statement made by the respondent No. 2, without any documents produced in support of the statement, and thus, the fixation of gratuity from year 1968 on the basis of statement alone, is bad in law anddeserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that this is ’ a question of findings of facts as the Court below has recorded hndings ’v; and the contention of the petitioner that since no document is hled to establish his date of appointment in the year 1948, may not be accepted. 6. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1948. The petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his contention that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1948. Mr. Agrawal has referred to annexure R/l/l filed by the respondent No. l, wherein, the date of appointment of the petitioner is shown as 05.04.70. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner has failed to produce any documents in support of affirmation that he was appointed in the year 1948. It appears that this petition is misconceived. The date cannot be accepted as no documents have been produced and .i“ that to 20 years pn'or to data of appointment determined by the, authorities below. Even otherwise, there are some discrepancies. in the employment register. The petitioner cannot take help of irregularity, as he was granted beneht from 14.1 1 .68,»in support of his contention that he was appointed in the year 1948. 8. The contention of the petitioner that controlling authority has taken date- of appointment as 14.11.68 and the employment-register shows the date , of appointment as 05.04.70. Thus, there is irregularity and'the date of _ appointment suggested by the petitioner i.e. year 1948 on the basis of statement made by the counsel for the petitioner may be accepted. This contention is miseonceived as no material is available in support of the contention. The same deserves to be rejected outrightly. This petition I is ii‘ivolous, having no merit, thus, the orders passed by the authorities below do not warrant any interference and deserve to be maintained. 9. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Jf sal- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge