- (1.) THIS is an intra -court appeal filed by the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 3435/1995 (U.O.I. v. Dilip Kumar and Ors.) under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against an order dated 20.11.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 343 5/1995.
(2.) THIS is what the learned Single Judge observed while dismissing the writ of the appellant.: By way of impugned order at Annexure -6 dt. 22nd February, 1995 the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent -workman and held that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 6853/ - as gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Under the circumstances, without going into legality and validity of the order and any other question involved in this petition, this petition is required to be dismissed because of the meagre amount of Rs. 6853/ - as gratuity is involved in this petition. Hence dismissed. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) IN our view, the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Single Judge is just and proper calling no interference in our appellate jurisdiction . It is a case where the question before the competent authorities and then before the writ -court was whether claim of respondent in relation to the payment of Rs. 6853/ - towards claim of gratuity on respondents attaining the age of superannuation is justified or not. It was held to be so justified by two Courts below and accordingly the application made by respondents (employee) was allowed by giving impugned directions to pay the money to respondents towards his claim of gratuity. In our view, it is not a fit case for the Union of India to pursue in an appeal because firstly the amount involved is very meagre and secondly substantial justice is done to employee.;