GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARDversusJAYESHBHAI RATILAL MEHTA

       C/SCA/1215/2026                          ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




          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


                                Page 1 of 4
      C/SCA/1215/2026                              ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




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

                                   Page 2 of 4
     C/SCA/1215/2026                             ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




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

                                Page 3 of 4
          C/SCA/1215/2026                                                                ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




 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



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/02/2026 14:43:55




                                                          Page 4 of 4