@ HIGI—I COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2939 of 1992 Petitionar Lakhan Lal Versus Respondents The Gsneral Manager, A.C.C. Cement FactOIy, Jamul 85 others SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. whotri, J ‘ Shn' H. B. Aga1wa1, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Agalwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for the Iespondents No. 1 and 2. ORDER ( 15* December, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. 1. The petitioner was working in the respondent No.1 factOIy, allegedly through the respondent No.2. The petitioner filed an application on 24.7. 1985 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act, 1972’) hefore the Controlling Authority, under the Act, 1972, Raipnr Division, Raipur in Case No. 1’7/PGA/85. The respondent No.1 raised objection by filing an application on 17.2.1986 that the name of the respondent No.1 be deleted &om the array of the parties as the petitioner was employed with the respondent No.2. The Continuing Authority by order dated 28.3.1989 rejected the application of the respondent No.1 after holding that the respondent No. 1 was a necessary palty. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 tiled an appeal under Section 7 of the Act, 1972 before the Appellate Authority in Case No. 6/ PGA/ 1989. The appellate authority, after having considered the facts, adjudicated upon the entire issue which was pending consideration before the controlling authority and held that the 2 5b mspondent No. 1 was not a necessary party as the respondent No. 1 was not tha employer of the petitioner. 3. The onier of the appellate authority is pewerse, conn‘ary to the settled position of law, as the interim ItEef, which amounts to grant of final relief, cannot be granted. without proper adjudication of the displlte, which is still pending consideration before the controlling authority. Thus the order dated 17.6.1992 passed by the appellate authority deserves to be set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to the controlling authority for adjudication on merits. According, the petition is allowed accordingly. The order dated 17.6. 1992 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, passed in Case No. 6! PGA/ 1989 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the contmlling authority with the direction to decide the case in accordance with law, expeditidusly. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has been yending consideration since 1989, the same may be decided Within a yeriod of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this otde . 1". i /’t I/M’*‘ ‘r‘ernx‘lzy > rci:»’o"””§hh r 7 ‘ Satish K. Agnihom a ‘ 73.9%?“