1 2025:CGHC:34001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 144 of 2025  Jai Balaji Industries Limited Registered Office - 5, Bentinck Street Kolkata -70001 (West Bengal) And Factory Place At Industrial Growth Centre Borai, Rasmada, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. - 491009, Through Authorized Authority Sudhir Joshi, Son Of 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. Om Prakash Vaishnav S/o Shri Krishna Das Vaishnav Aged About 48 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 Insustrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 07.2025 1. Today this matter is listed for order(s) on default(s). Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.18 17:30:48 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that xerox copy of order impugned passed by the Controlling Authority has 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 copy of the order impugned. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that identical matters have already been disposed of and petitioner has placed on record the xerox copy of the order impugned, therefore, I.A. No. 02/2025 is allowed and office objections are hereby ignored. 4. Heard on admission. 5. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.03.2025 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. 6. Learned counsel 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. 3 (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. 7. He would further submit that application under the provisions of Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 1973 was moved and same has 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 application on merits and strictly in accordance with the law. 8. Heard. 9. Perusal of the order impugned would show that final order has been passed by the Controlling Authority on 07.03.2025 under the Rules, 1973. It appears that ex-parte order was passed; therefore, the petitioner moved application for setting-aside ex-parte order and that application has not been decided by the Controlling Authority. 10.Taking into consideration the limited issue involved in this case, writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the learned Controlling Authority to decide the pending application moved by the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 1973 strictly in accordance with the law. 4 11. The petitioner would be at liberty to move application for the grant of stay before the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority shall decide the application for the grant of stay within a period of 60 days. 12.With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya