Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108825 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21474 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bharat Heavy Electricals (Bhel) Khailar Respondent :- Apppellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 1/Appellate Authority in Claim Application No. PGA-97/2025/C is under challenged in the present petition. By the aforesaid order statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of non compliance of the statutory provisions contained under section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 according to which at the time of filing the appeal the awarded amount should be deposited. 2. It is argued that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide order dated 25th November, 2024, a direction was given for making the payment of gratuity in favour of private-respondents equally i.e. Rs. Ten Lakhs. It is further argued that as per paragraph 4 of the aforesaid order itself, it is clear that the aforesaid amount has already been deposited by the petitioner by way of demand draft number 272629 dated 14.06.2021 issued by State Bank of India, BHEL, Branch, Jhansi in favour of Regional Labour Commissioner Central Kanpur for Rs. 10,00,000/-. The same reads as follows:- "The applicant under section 7(4)(a) submitted a demand draft number 272629 dated 14.06.2021 issued by State Bank of India, BHEL Branch, Jhansi in favour of Regional Labour Commissioner Central Kanpur for Rs. 1000000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh only) which is the amount that the applicant had to pay as gratuity in favour of Late Ganesh Prasad or now his nominees (disputed) after his death." 3. It is argued that once the amount in question has already been deposited before the Controlling Authority there was no occasion for the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount again before the Appellate Authority as per Section 7(7) of the Act, 1972. 4. It is further argued that the order passed by the Appellate Authority/Respondent no. 1 dated 23rd June, 2025 without going through the averments made even without going the order passed by the controlling authority. 5. This fact is also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents. 6. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order passed by respondent no. 1 dated 23rd June, 2025 is liable to be set aside and hereby set aside. 7. Respondent no. 1/Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner without insisting him to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as directed in the order dated 23rd June, 2025. He is further directed to decide the appeal, most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing all the parties concerned. 8. Since the order has been passed without hearing to the respondent nos. 5 to 10, the respondent nos. 5 to 10 are at liberty to file a recall application, if so advised. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad