THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 682 of 2003 Dated: 04-02-2011 Between: M/s Khair Enterprises, rep. by its Partner M.A.Quahar …Petitioner and Mr. Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin and others. …Respondents. Order: The writ petition is filed against the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad dated 15-11-2002 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad dated 21-3-2002, by which the application of the 1st respondent was allowed directing the petitioner to pay Rs.25,422/- towards gratuity. The 1st respondent approached the Controlling Authority claiming to have joined as an Accountant in the petitioner’s company on 4-7-1994 and worked up to 7-4-2001 when his services were terminated. He approached the management several times for payment of gratuity, but the management declined and hence the application to the Controlling Authority. The petitioner, both before the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority contended that the employee had already received gratuity and other benefits and nevertheless filed a false case. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner before the statutory authority was that though the salary of the 1st respondent herein was Rs.4,500/-, at the instance of the employee for his better future employment prospects, the management had issued a salary certificate showing a salary of Rs.6,300/-, which was misused by the employee to file the case claiming gratuity. Both the authorities below found that the writ petitioner had failed to marshall any material in support of his claim that it paid gratuity to the employee. Accordingly, both the authorities concurrently found in favour of the employee. The lower appellate authority confirmed the finding of the primary and Controlling Authority that the 1st respondent herein is entitled to gratuity of Rs.25,422/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court discerns no error in the application of law and appreciation of evidence on record by the statutory authorities, warranting interference in Certiorari. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 4th February, 2011. GRR