- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1063 of 2004* by which the writ petition was dismissed and consequently the plea of the petitioner -appellant herein claiming balance amount towards payment of gratuity was rejected.
(2.) IN order to explain the controversy it is worthwhile to state that the petitioner had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge that his date of joining in the service of the Respondent -C. C.L. was 1.2.1962 but the Respondent -Authority had wrongly recorded his date of entry into the service as 1.12.1965 and therefore the amount towards gratuity should have been calculated by taking his entry into the service on 1.2.1962 and not 1.12.1965. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as also after hearing the Counsel for the parties, it could be noticed that the petitioner -appellant although had challenged the date in regard to his entry into the service as 1.12.1965 he had not produced a chit of paper to indicate that his date of joining in service was 1.2.1962. On the contrary, the Counsel for the respondent -C.C.L. explained that the entire papers on record indicate that the petitioner -appellant had entered into the service of the Respondent -C.C.L. on 1.12.1965 and hence all the retiral benefits were coputed by computing the service period from 1.12.1965.
(3.) SINCE the petitioner -appellant had failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim that he had entered into the service on 1.2.1962, the Respondent cannot be blamed to have wrongly computed the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner -appellant by taking the date of his entry into the service as 1.12.1965. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that he had succeeded before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who had held that the appellant had entered into the service on 1.2.1962. But we fail to understand as to how the authority before whom no chit of paper was produced to indicate that he had entered into the service on 1.2.1962 could pass an order in favour of the appellant contrary to the record of the Respondent -Employer.;