D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) When the matter is called out, neither the learned counsel for the appellant nor the learned counsel for the respondents are present. Reasons:-
(2.) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner and they are in search of shifting the date of implementation of amendment carried out in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The date of amendment is 24th May, 2010 and on or from that date, the benefits granted under the amended Act shall be given to the workmen who retired after 24th May, 2010.
(3.) It further appears from the facts of the case that there is enhancement of the payment of gratuity limit. Earlier, it was lesser and now it is enhanced up to Rs.10 Lakhs.;