- (1.) These are eight writ petitions which were heard together and as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the parties jointly agreed that the controversy factual and legal in all these petitions are identical. On the request, the Writ Petition No. 50785/2006 was considered as leading case and the facts from that writ petition are being noted.
(3.) The present writ petitions arise out of proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and are directed against the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, U.P. under the said Act in favour of the contesting Respondent No. 3, Sri Sushil Chandra Sharma, in the leading writ petition. The private contesting Respondents who were the employees of the Petitioner after reaching the age of superannuation moved the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act by raising a grievance that the amount of gratuity paid to them is deficient/short. The said plea has found favour with the two authorities below.;