- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) These three petitions are directed against different orders dated 8.2.2011 passed by the Controlling Authority (Central) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') and confirming appellate order dated 28.2.2012 on similar facts and grounds and therefore, are being decided together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The first writ petition is the leading petition.
(3.) Brief relevant facts are that the respondent no.3 was employed in the petitioner establishment in 1975 and after completion of more than 24 years of service, he retired on 31.3.1999. However, when despite demand the gratuity was not paid, he preferred his claim before the authority appointed by the State Government under the Act. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that since the establishment is spread in more than two States, only the authority appointed by the Central Government would have jurisdiction. Thus, the application was rejected with liberty to approach the competent forum. In pursuance thereof, the private respondent filed his application under the Act claiming gratuity before the respondent no.1. After exchange of pleadings and evidence, the claim was allowed and the consequential appeal has also been dismissed.;