IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No. 7§32 OF 2007. y, M/s. K.N. OIL INDUSTRIES LTD., Through : Its Director, Mahasamund (C.G.). PETITIONER@ VERSUS / 1. Mohan Majhi S/o Shri Bharto Maghee, Kherabhata, Distt : Mahasamund (C.G.). / 2. The Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDENT(S) 3. The Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ,OF INDIA. The Petitioner above named, respectfully beg to submit as under:- PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER‘. As shown in the cause title. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (L) Na. 7203 of 2007 PETITIONER M/s K.N. Oil Industries Ltd. through its Director VERSUS RESPONDENTS Ramnath Sahu and others Writ Petition (L) No. 7532 of 2007 M/s K.N. Oii industries Ltd. through its Director VERSUS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Mohan Majhi and others Writ Petition (L) No. 7533 of 2007 M/s K.N. Oil Industries Ltd. through its Director PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS Girdharilai Sahu and others Shri P.S. Koshy counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anup Majumdar; counsel for respondent No.1. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (28.09.201 1) As all the aforesaid petitions, three in number, arise out of the same order dated 14.11.2007 passed by respondent No.3 herein in Case Nos. 18 PGA/2006, 26PGA/2006 and 22 PGA/2006 respectively and that the point involved therein is also one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The order impugned dated 14.11.2007 has been passed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur (respondent m No.3 in ail the three petitions) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 arising out of the order of the Controliing Authority i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur in Case No. 115/PGAI2004, 123/PGA/2004 and 1 1 9/PGA/2004 respectively. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that certain amount towards gratuity was given to respondent No.1 in each of these cases on their termination from service from the petitioner’s establishment. The amount of gratuity given to the private respondents was deposited by them and a claim was raised before the Controlling Authority (respondent No.2 herein) under’yhe Payment of Gratuity Act i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur and three ex parte awards were made against the petitioner on 3.8.2005. in appeal before the appellate authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur), an objection was raised by the petitioner that as per the deflnition given in Section 2 (a) sub clause (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 appropriate government in respect of the petitioner would be the Central Government having branches in more than one State. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order impugned the appellate authority has not considered this important legal issue and bypassing the same it has passed the order impugned on merit. He submits that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner goes to the root of the matter and the appellate authority was obliged to decide the same mst. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the matter may be remitted back to the appellate authority for deciding the legal issue involved therein and proceed further. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the order impugned and submits that the appeilate authority was not obliged to decide we preliminary legal objection raised by thepetitioner. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. From the documents on record it is apparent that before the appellate authority an objection was raised by the petitioner with respect to the authority of the State Government for deciding the matter pertaining to / 9. Petition disposed or. the Payment of Gratuity but while passing the order impugned the same has not been touched by the appellate authority. The objection raised by the petitioner goes to the root of the matter and if the same is decided in its favour, it wili have the effect over the order passed by the controlling ‘ authority. 3. ‘Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order _ impugned dated 18.1 1.2007 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the appellate authority (respondent No.3 herein) for deciding the appeal afresh including the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner, after giving due opportunity to the parties. lf required, parties would be permitted to lead evidence. Needless to say that the amount already deposited before the appellate authority would not be disbursed till the appeal is decided. Both the parties, as agreed by them, shall appear before the g appellate authority on 3.1 1.201 1. f Sdl- Pritinker Diwake" Judge /