1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1147 OF 2010 (Hotel Pacific and Restaurant vs. Radheshyam Pyarelal Basena & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 17, 2010. Heard Shri Motwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Wasnik, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 & 3 is seeking further time to obtain instructions. Nobody appears for respondent No.1 though he is served with notice for final disposal. The petitioner has already deposited the amount of gratuity as per orders of Competent Authority. The short grievance of the petitioner is that on 03.03.2008, the Competent Authority has observed in the order sheet that the next date shall be communicated to the parties but then no such communication was ever issued and the matter was taken up on 04.04.2008. He invites attention to specific grievance in this respect. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order passed, shows total non application of mind to this aspect and as it is passed behind the back of the petitioner, it is unsustainable. 2 The learned AGP has stated that as the records are still awaited, she is not in a position to rebut the contentions. This Court has issued the notice for final disposal on 10.03.2010. In this situation, as I do not find anything wrong or dishonest with the assertions made on oath by the petitioner, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed behind his back and without any opportunity to him. The perusal of order sheet reveals that on 03.03.2008, the authority has stated that the next date shall be communicated to the parties. Then on 15.03.2008, there is an endorsement that the petitioner should be summoned on 04.04.2008. The order sheet dated 04.04.2008 reveals that Respondent No. 1 was present on that date while the petitioner was absent. It is recorded that the petitioner was given opportunities time and again but he has failed to appear and hence cross examination of Respondent No. 1 was closed. It is, therefore, apparent that after 03.03.2008, 04.04.2008 was the first occasion and it cannot be said that the petitioner was absent on number of occasions. The petitioner had shown his bonafides by depositing the amount of gratuity as per the orders of Competent Authority. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.09.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings are restored back to the file of Competent 3 Authority i.e. Respondent No. 3 for its fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving the parties an opportunity of further hearing and participation. The parties shall appear before the said authority on 07.07.2010 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. The date of appearance shall be communicated to the employee by Respondent No. 3. The amount in deposit with Respondent No. 3 shall not be allowed to be withdrawn till the application is finally decided by that authority and the party succeeding thereafter be allowed to withdraw that amount. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.