IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1215 of 2026 ========================================== GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD Versus JAYESHBHAI RATILAL MEHTA & ORS. ========================================== Appearance: MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ASHLESHA M PATEL(6127) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 10/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is 1led by the petitioner, challenging the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority dated 18.07.2024 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 wherein the learned Appellate Authority has returned the memo of the appeal on the ground that the appeal is 1led beyond the period of 120 days and non-production of challan. 2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the workman was appointed with the petitioner on 08.10.1985 as Executive Engineer and he was retired on 30.11.2020 at the age of superannuation and he had worked for 35 years. It is contended that due to delay in making payment of gratuity, he had preferred an application before the Controlling Authority, which came to be allowed vide order dated 23.02.2024 and directed the petitioner to pay 10% simple interest on p. 2 delayed payment and vide order dated 12.03.2024, the Controlling Authority corrected the name of the workman in the said order. 2.1 It is contended that being aggrieved, the petitioner had challenged the order before the Appellate Authority by 1ling Gratuity Appeal, whereby the Appellate Authority found that as the petitioner had not joined the payment challan and, therefore, the appeal was not accepted and further observed that as the appeal was 1led after 120 days, the same cannot be registered. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatis1ed with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Heard Mr.Hardeep Mahida, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ashlesha Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Mr.Mahida, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without joining the resolution professionals as a party respondent and without considering the reply 1led by the present petitioner, petitioner was held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the gratuity. Mr.Mahida, learned counsel has also submitted that as there was a mutual agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, and respondent No.2 accepted all the liabilities of the payment of statutory dues of the respondent workman, however, without considering the same, impugned order is passed and appeal was not accepted on the ground of delay. Mr.Mahida, learned counsel has further submitted that instead of returning the appeal memo, learned Appellate Authority could have considered the merits of the case. However, without doing the same, learned Appellate Authority has returned the memo vide order dated 18.07.2024 and therefore, same p. 3 order is required to be set aside and appeal is required to be directed, to be heard on merits. 6. On the other hand, Ms.Patel, learned counsel for the respondent – workman has submitted that the learned Appellate Authority would not have jurisdiction after 120 days from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. She has submitted that no error is committed in returning the appeal memo by the learned Appellate Authority, therefore, same does not require any interference. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the learned Controlling Authority without referring to any contention of the petitioner, though it is stated that reply is received, passed impugned order accepting the bare words of the respondent workman. The learned Controlling Authority has also not considered the aspect that the respondent No.2 who was joined before the learned Controlling Authority and the principal employer did not appear, however, the petitioner who appeared was also held liable alongwith the respondent No.2. 8. This Court is of the view that instead of returning the appeal memo on the ground of delay and non-production of challan, the main appeal is required to be heard on merits, hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Appeal is directed to be heard on merits. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from today. 9. This Court has not given any opinion on merits. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, the impugned p. 4 order of returning the appeal memo is set aside. Direct service is permitted. 10. It is open for both the parties to raise their contentions before the learned Appellate Authority. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL