- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated October 5, 2016 passed in the writ application. The subject matter for consideration in the writ application was that the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1972) and the point of maintainability of the claim of the appellant/workmen for gratuity was not considered. The learned single judge after hearing the parties passed the following order:- "Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the matter be relegated to the Controlling Authority who shall decide this issue raised by the petitioner/Company first in the light of the Standing Orders of the Company(Supra\) and then proceed to consider the other issues. Let such adjudication be concluded expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments and not later than 16 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations levelled in the writ petition shall be deemed to be admitted. W.P. No.20278(W) of 2016, W.P.20282(W) of 2016, W.P.20284(W) of 2016, W.P.20276(W) of 2016 and W.P.20274(W) of 2016 stand accordingly disposed of."
(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Rananeesh Guha Thakurta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that in view of the settled principles of law as decided by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Debasish Kar Gupta,J.), the presiding judge, M/s. Budge Budge Company Limited v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.(In re: M.A.T. 1800 of 2017) the point of maintainability of a proceeding before the Controlling Authority under the said Act, 1972 should be considered along with the claim of the workmen for gratuity on its merit. It is further submitted by him that the above judgement was passed on December 21, 2017 relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 153.
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Balai Chandra Paul, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents Company that the hearing of the point of maintainability is in progress before the Controlling Authority under the said Act, 1972. The appellant had chosen to adduce any evidence on the point of maintainability in spite of participating. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is a fit case to direct the authority to hear the claim of the appellant workmen on its merit at this stage.;