1 2025:CGHC:27933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 122 of 2025  Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Registered Office - 5, Bentinck Street Kolkata - 700001 (West Bengal) And Factory Place At Industrial Growth Centre Borai, Rasmada, District Durg C.G. 491009, Through Authorized Authority Sudhir Joshi, Son Of Late Shri Mudhukar Joshi, Aged About 60 Years, Working For Gain At Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Borai, Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 491009 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chova Ram S/o Shri Devlal Sahu Aged About 69 Years R/o Village And Post Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2. Shri Padmini Dhurve M/s Kumar Undertaking, C/o Jai Balaji Industries Pvt. Ltd. Rasmada Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 111 of 2025  Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Registered Office-5, Bentinck Street Kolkata- 700001 (West Bengal) And Factory Place At Industrial Growth Centre Borai, Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh - 491009, Through Authorized Authority Sudhir Joshi, S/o Late Shri Madhukar Joshi, Aged About 60 Years, Working For Gain At Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Borai Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh 491009 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Santu Nirmalkar S/o Late Dular Nirmalkar Aged About 53 Years R/o Village And Post - Rasmada, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Shri Padmini Dhurve M/s Kumar Undertaking, C/o Jai Balaji Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rasmada Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg Chhattisgarh SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.26 17:09:11 +0530 2 --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26. 06.2025 1. Today these matters are listed for order(s) on default(s). 2. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025(in both the petitions), an application praying for exemption from filing certified copy of order dated 07.03.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that xerox copies of orders impugned passed by the Controlling Authority have been placed on record. He would further submit that identical matters have already been disposed wherein direction has been issued to the Controlling Authority to decide pending applications moved under provisions of Rule 11 (5) of the C.G. Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973. He prays for exemption from filing the certified copies of the orders impugned. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that identical matters have already been disposed of and petitioner has placed on record the xerox copies of the orders impugned, therefore, I.A. No. 02/2025(in both the petitions) are allowed and office objections are hereby ignored. Heard on admission. 6. The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and 3 facts therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 7. In these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.03.2025 (in both the petitions) passed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”), whereby, the petitioner was directed to pay gratuity to the private respondents. 8. Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that:- (a) The petitioner is not an employer of the employees, who moved applications before the Controlling Authority, (b) The order impugned was passed ex-parte and there was no service of summons. (c) The application moved under Rule 11 (5) of the C.G. Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 (for short “Rules, 1973”) has not been considered and decided by the learned Controlling Authority. 9. He would further submit that applications under the provisions of Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 1973 were moved in all cases and those applications have not been decided by the learned Controlling Authority. He would also submit that a direction may be issued to the learned Controlling Authority to decide the pending applications on merits and strictly in accordance with the law. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General would submit that final orders have already been passed in all cases by the Controlling Authority and the petitioner has a remedy to prefer appeals before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Rules, 1973. He would further submit 4 that the petitioner may raise all available grounds in appeals. He would contend that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 12. Perusal of the orders impugned would show that final orders have been passed in all cases by the Controlling Authority on 07.03.2025 under the Rules, 1973. It appears that ex-parte orders were passed; therefore, the petitioner moved applications for setting-aside ex-parte orders in all cases and those applications have not been decided by the Controlling Authority. 13. Taking into consideration the limited issue involved in these cases, both the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the learned Controlling Authority to decide the pending applications moved by the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 1973 strictly in accordance with the law. 14. The petitioner would be at liberty to move applications for the grant of stay before the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority shall decide the applications for the grant of stay within a period of 60 days. 15. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant