D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) When the matter is called out, counsel for the appellants is present and argued out the case at length. No body appears on behalf of respondents.
(2.) Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent is a workman, within the meaning of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is further submitted by the counsel for the ppellant that CBI has instituted a case against the respondent and charge sheet has also been filed and as per section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, management has all power, jurisdiction and authority to withhold the gratuity and hence, an speaking and detailed order has been passed on 13th January, 2015 ( Annexure- 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Nonetheless, the amount of gratuity has already been deposited before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
(3.) It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that application for withdrawal of the amount has been preferred by the respondent-workman, in which the reply has already been filed by this appellant for not to allow withdrawal of the amount of gratuity, in view of sub section 6 of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the said application is still pending before the Controlling Authority. Meanwhile, a writ petition has been preferred by the respondent-workman being WP(L) No. 2811 of 2015 and the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 13th January, 2015 without appreciating the fact that there cannot be any other reason than section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for withholding the gratuity amount. Even, otherwise also such application has been filed before the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972. At the highest, direction may be given to the Controlling Authority to decide the said application, preferred by the respondent, in accordance with law within stipulated time.;