- (1.) Counsel for the Petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated February 25, 2009 submits that the only question that requires decision in the petition is whether the Petitioner was paid gratuity to which he was entitled under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
(2.) counsel submits that the Petitioner was paid ' 34,000 less than the amount to which the Petitioner was entitled. In support of his submission he refers me to para. 34(vi), which is: (vi). The Petitioner received a sum of ' 55,064-00 as Gratuity but according his calculation the Final dues of ' 45,000-00 (Rupees Forty five thousand only) was not decided by the authority as yet and no balance sheet was supplied to the Petitioner.
(3.) Mr Ghosh, counsel for the employer, submits that in the opposition the employer has specifically said that the whole of the gratuity amount payable to the Petitioner was duly paid.;