CW 10414/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10414/08 Municipal Council, Beawar Versus The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12/08/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. B.K. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. D.P. Sharma, for respondent *** Matter has come up on application U/Art.226 (3) of the Constitution for vacation of interim order passed by this court dt.14th November, 2008. But, with the consent of parties, it is finally decided at this stage. Instant petition has been filed by Municipal Council, Beawar assailing order of appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Rajasthan, Jaipur on the premise that they failed to remove defects pointed out by the office on 5th June, 2007. Appeal itself was rejected on 8th June, 2007. Respondent No.3 filed application for grant of gratuity admissible to him under law before the Prescribed Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which was allowed vide Ann.7 – against the said order, appeal was preferred by petitioner on 19th March, 2006. Office of the CW 10414/08 [2] appellate authority for the first time pointed out defects in filing of appeal on 5th June, 2007 and without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant to remove the defects. Appeal itself was rejected on 8th June, 2007. Only submission made by counsel for petitioner is that neither opportunity of hearing was afforded nor appeal has been considered on merits. It is nothing, but a clear denial of principles of natural justice. Counsel for respondent, who is represented by Mr.D.P. Sharma, submits that law, which came for consideration, is well settled and does not require further scrutiny and it has been taken note of by the Prescribed Authority itself while deciding application filed by respondent. Suffice it to say that once there is a provision of appeal provided under the statute that cannot be curtailed by deciding appeal in such a slipshod manner and it is expected from the authority to decide the statutory appeal preferred after affording opportunity of hearing and not on these technicalities as pointed out supra. Apart from it, in the facts of instant case, office of the appellate authority for the CW 10414/08 [3] first time pointed out defect on 5th June, 2007 and without affording opportunity to the appellant to remove such defects, appeal itself was rejected on 8th June, 2007. Such practice cannot be appreciated by this court. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order dt.8th June, 2007 & so also recovery warrant [Ann.11] issued u/s.229 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority under the Gratuity Act to decide the dispute raised on merits after affording opportunity to the parties concerned. Both the parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 14th September, 2009. It is expected from the authority to decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. Petitioner undertakes to remove defects within 7 days of appearance before the authority. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA10414CW08 12-8.doc