tN1Tfl HIGH COURT OFKANA1K AJBANkLCRE U1EL iifIS ThE 3RD DAY OF RIL i998 efore li HON’bL 4t.JUSTICE G.PaThI bASiVAA GOLD WRIT PEIIIXON No,3o85Ji996 Between 1. Suprintending Vngineer, Public Horks Depcrtment, Dangal o re. 2. Ihe Executive Engineer, Public orks Department, Mangalore. .. Peti tioncrs ( By Sri,K.H.Jagadish, IICGA ) And 1. Sri,Muthu, major, S/o. Koraga, Kumbasi Post, Kundapura D,K. 2. Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Has san. 3. Labour Commissioner, VISL Building, J.C.Road, Bangalore. .. Resndents — pus writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India raying to quash the order dated 28.11.94 vide Ann.B by R3 confiriring the order dated 28.2. 1990 by R2 vide Ann.A, . . . 2. -: 2 :— This writ Petition is coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following : OR D ER In t his writ petition under rcles 226 & 227 of the Constitution,the petitioners employers seekj quashing of the orders of Re pondents 2 and 3 at Anne x ne-’ A’ and ‘13’ viz., of the Authorir under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘Act’ for short) and of the Appellate Authority respectively. Under Annexure-’A’ 1 the 2nd respondent-Authority under the Act directed payment of gratuity of Rs.5,077/_ to the 1st respondent—employee for thp 18 years of service that the 1St r.pondent had put iii the petitioners. The petition€s-emPloyers rreferred apoeal to the 3rd resRnident, that came to be rejected as per th order at lnnexure—’B’. 2. Having regard to the material on record, the 2nd respondent_Authority has found on facts that, in respect of 18 years of service that the 1st resPondent had put in aix! also having regard to the wages that he was drawing, the 1 9t respondent was due to be paid a sum of Rs.5,077/- by way of gratuity as calculated under section 7 of the Act, . . . ‘3. - - — _ I —: 3 :— Having regard to the material on record, this finding on face oaxiot be called Perverse. 3. The petitioners ap’oacheci the APPe1I ate Authority-3rd respondent without compliance with second Iroviso to ub—section (7) of Section 7 of the Act i.e. without UI Icing th requisite deposit of the anunt that i s determined as the amount iyable as - gratuity to the 1st respondent. The 3rd re sPondenu—APPeII te Authority has, there for e, rightly rejected the appeal. There is no infirmity in Annexure’A’ and ‘B’. 4. grit Petition is disnssed with a direction that the Petidonrs shall deposit with the 2nd resrondent-Authority under the Act the anz,unt of gratuity paythie to the 1st respondent in rms of inexures—’A’ am ‘B’ within three month, from today, to withdraw which, the 1st respondent would be at liberty. /4 2 SJ/