Ashok Bhan, J. - (1.) This judgment shall dispose of three Writ Petition Nos. 9803/91, 9808/9] and 10381/91 filed by Municipal Committee, Tohana against three different employees. The question of law involved is the same. These cases are being taken together and disposed of by a common judgment. Facts are taken from CWP No. 9803/91.
(2.) Bhagwan Dass respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 3) retired as Octroi Maharrir, Municipal Committee, Tohana (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner). Respondent No. 3 filed an application before the Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Controlling Authority) under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 for payment of gratuity under the Act. Respondent No. 3 had rendered approximately 39 years 9 months and 15 days of service and was drawing Rs. 1753/ - per month as salary. The Controlling Authority issued a notice to the petitioner who filed the written statement denying its liability to pay the gratuity. On the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed: - 1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount as claimed in the claim applicant? 2. Relief.
(3.) After filing the written statement, petitioner Municipal Committee did not put in appearance before the Controlling Authority and was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 3 lead his evidence. After taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence lead by respondent No. 3, the Controlling Authority ordered that gratuity be paid to respondent No. 3. Petitioner was also directed to pay 15% compound interest per annum on the amount due from the date of institution till its payment to respondent No. 3.;