1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 53/2011 (President Halwai Hotel Association VERSUS Additional Commissioner of Labour & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.G. Bade, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. I.L. Bodade, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 12 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Additional Commissioner of Labour and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 holding that the petitioner was liable to pay gratuity amount of Rs.29,578/- to the respondent no.3-employee with simple interest @ 10% per annum from 01.06.2007 till the actual realization. The only ground raised by the petitioner before this Court for challenging the orders passed by the authorities is that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were not applicable to the petitioner as the number of employees engaged by the petitioner at the relevant time when the respondent no.3-employee retired, was only seven. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders along with the application, the reply cum written statement, it appears that the authorities did not commit any error whatsoever in 2 holding that the respondent no.3-employee was entitled to receive gratuity amount from the petitioner. It is necessary to note that it was not the case of the petitioner before the Competent Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Gondia that the Payment of Gratuity Act was not applicable to the petitioner since the employees working with the petitioner at the relevant time were only seven. It is vaguely submitted by the petitioner in the reply cum written statement filed before the Authority that Payment of Gratuity Act was not applicable to the petitioner. It is necessary to note that the petitioner did not examine any witness on its behalf and also did not cross-examine the respondent no.3-employee. In such circumstances, the authorities rightly believed on the word of the respondent no.3 to hold that the respondent no.3 was in the employment of the petitioner since the year 1980 and had retired from service on 01.05.2005 by an oral order. The petitioner did not prove its case that the respondent no.3 started working as a helper only since 01.04.1997. In the absence of any evidence on the part of the petitioner, the authorities accepted the contention of the respondent no.3 that he was appointed on 10.04.1980 and he retired on 01.05.2005. The authorities rightly held that nothing was brought on record by the petitioner to show that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act were inapplicable to the facts of this case. As already mentioned hereinabove, it was not the case of the petitioner in the reply cum written statement that the employees working with the petitioner at the relevant time were only seven and, hence, the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act did not apply to the petitioner. The orders passed by both the authorities are just and proper 3 and do not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE