24.09.2026 Item no. 20 Court no. 30 g.b. 266012 WPA 21823 of 2019 Ramesh Kumar Mundhra Vs. The Union of India & Ors. Ms. Arunima Lala Mr. Prabhat Kr. Srivastava …… For the Petitioner Mr. Niladri Khanra Mr. Dipranjan Mukhopadhyay ….For the Respondent No. 3 1. The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by an order dated 18th of October, 2019 passed by the Appellate Authority (Central) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. Vide the impugned order. The Appellate Authority passed an order which is as follows: “Primarily the appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground of jurisdiction of the Central Government and forfeiture of the gratuity amount which was to be paid to the respondent on the ground of misconduct and also indulging in moral turpitude. While adjudicating the appeal the 'respondent has specifically advised to submit a detailed counter covering the issues raised by the appellant. But the respondent while filing his counter vide dt. 07.8.2019 did not contest on the issue of the jurisdiction that the appellant has establishment present more than one state. 2 Interestingly it seems this issue was raised by the appellant in course of adjudication which was undertaken by the Controlling Authority. Interestingly the Controlling Authority has mentioned in his order the appellant has a registered office at Kolkata whereas it has a Manufacturing Unit at Hyderabad. But the Controlling Authority in the order portion has mentioned peculiarly that the appellant company is operating on All India basis without discussing anything about whether the appellant establishment has branches present more than one state. It may be mentioned here that as per Section 2(a)(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Central Government shall be appropriate provisions which may not be a connecting factor here for discussion. But it is clear if an establishment does not have branch in more than one state, the Central Government will lack jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act to adjudicate a claim, if an application is filed by an employee with regard to non-payment of his gratuity by the employer. I am very clear from argument and records that the respondent has failed to bring evidence in course of the adjudication of application which was being undertaken before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority also though admitted the fact 3 the employer has contested this jurisdictional issue, did not pass a reasoned order to establish his jurisdiction and to conclude that the Central Government will be appropriate Government to adjudicate an application where he will have bona fide jurisdiction. In view of above discussion, I upheld the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the establishment does not have branches more than one state. As such even if a manufacturing unit is functioning under the ownership of the appellant, the same shall not be deemed to be an establishment as per Section 1(3)(b) which distinguishes factory from establishment. Also the concept of manufacturing process in a factory is having a distinct character, that the establishment which is explained under the law. The respondent has failed to advance any evidence to contradict the statement of the appellant in this regard. Accordingly, the order passed by the Controlling Authority is set aside on the ground of jurisdictional point of view without going into the merit of the application.” 3. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that prima facie the 4 establishment/respondent no.3 herein does not have branches outside the State of West Bengal. 4. Considering the reasoned order passed by the Appellate Authority (Central), this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and requires no interference by this Court. 5. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for the relief, as prayed for. 6. WPA 21823 of 2019 is disposed of. 7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after completion of all necessary formalites. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)