1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 151 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 Madhukar Joshi, Aged About 60 Years, Working For Gain At Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Borai Industrial Growth Centre, Rasmada, District Durg (C.G.) 491009 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Manharanlal Sahu S/o Shri Birju Aged About 59 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) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22. 07.2025 1. 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. 2. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that:- SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.22 15:01:15 +0530 2 (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. 3. He would further submit that application under the provisions of Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 1973 was moved and application 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 applications on merits and strictly in accordance with the law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Penal Lawyer would submit that final order has already been passed by the Controlling Authority and the petitioner has a remedy to prefer appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Rules, 1973. He would further submit that the petitioner may raise all available grounds in appeal. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Perusal of the orders 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 applications has not been decided by the Controlling Authority. 3 7. Taking into consideration the limited issue involved in this case, the present writ petition is 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. 8. 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. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant