HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2467 OF 2002 . DATED 13th September, 2011. BETWEEN The Management of Venkata Ramana Mechanical Engineering Works, rep. by its Managing Partner A.Satyanarayana …Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, TCST Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, Hyderabad and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2467 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner-Venkata Ramana Mechanical Engineering Works, represented by its Partner, questions the order dated 26.12.2001 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, in case No. PGA/3/2001, whereby the order dated 23.5.2000 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II in PG/21/99 directing the petitioner-employer to pay an amount of Rs.11168/- towards gratuity to the second respondent-workman was confirmed. The second respondent-workman worked as Fitter-cum-Welder in the petitioner unit from 07.08.1990 and resigned to the said post on 7.3.1999 and requested for payment of gratuity. When the petitioner-management did not accede to his request, the second respondent-workman invoked the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act, 1972 by filing an application being PG./21/ 99. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 disposed of the said application by order dated 23.05.2000 directing the petitioner-employer to pay an amount of Rs.11,168/- towards gratuity in as much as the petitioner- employer itself agreed for payment of some amount towards gratuity. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal being case No. PGA/3/ 2001 and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate authority by order dated 26.12.2001, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent-workman left his employment in March, 1999 abruptly on his own volition without prior intimation to the petitioner- management. He asserted that the second respondent-workman filed the application for payment of gratuity with delay of more than four months after the expiry of statutory period of 90 days and both the primary as well as appellate authorities failed to consider the same. He argued that since the petitioner-management has employed only six workers, the provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot be made applicable to it. He contended that the second respondent-workman had not worked continuously for 240 days in a year. He further contended that both the authorities below failed to exercise powers conferred on them by the Gratuity Act, 1972 in proper perspective while entertaining the claim of the second respondent-workman. Perused the case file. The lower appellate authority-first respondent, on considering the material placed on record, held that the petitioner-management failed to substantiate its case as to number of employees working during the relevant point of time to establish that it had employed less than ten workers. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the workman abruptly left the service on his own, it is to be seen that the petitioner-employer in his deposition before the Primary Authority deposed that the second respondent worked continuously till his resignation. Further, the petitioner-employer did not dispute the employment of the petitioner in its unit at any point of time before either of the authority and it indeed admitted the employment of the workman. The petitioner-employer also agreed for payment of some amount towards gratuity to the second respondent- workman. Having gone through the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner-management admitted the employment of the second respondent-workman in its unit from 7.8.1990 to 7.3.1999 including the period after change of its name and also for payment of some amount towards gratuity. When the petitioner- employer itself admitted for payment of some amount towards gratuity to the workman, the question as to whether the Gratuity Act would apply to the petitioner- employer or not, does not arise. The lower appellate authority considered all the contentions raised before it and material placed on record and passed the order impugned in the present Writ Petition. Therefore reappraisal and reconsideration of very same material in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not arise. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction will not indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors of mere formal or technical character and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the quasi judicial authorities which are based on consideration of the evidence. The purpose of Certiorari can be achieved by determining on examination of the record whether the inferior tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction or had not acted in accordance with the essential requirements of the law which it was expected to administer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the orders of both the primary as well as lower appellate authorities. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 13th September, 2011. Msnro