High Court of Gujarat

NITINKUMAR JAYKARBHAI MEHTAversusTHE J B AND BROTHERS PVT LTD

Disposal: 26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK

Holding

The High Court held that the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority are lawful and the petition challenging them is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a former employee of J B and Brothers Pvt Ltd, was terminated when the company closed down and filed for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming Rs 1,33,903 with 10% simple interest. The Controlling Authority initially rejected his claim, but on remand allowed Rs 1,08,692 with interest. The employer appealed, and the Appellate Authority partially set aside the decision, directing payment of the balance Rs 52,262 with interest. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging both orders, alleging they were illegal and that the employer had already paid the full gratuity. The High Court examined the records, found that the employer had indeed paid Rs 52,430 towards gratuity, which the petitioner had accepted, and concluded that the authorities had acted within their jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit and ordered the employer to pay the remaining amount within eight weeks.

Issues considered

Whether the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority granting only a partial gratuity payment are legally valid.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the full claimed gratuity amount of Rs 1,33,903 despite the employer's claim of prior payment.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the decisions of the gratuity authorities under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

Subjects

gratuityPayment of Gratuity Actwrit petitionArticle 226Article 227employment terminationappellate authoritycontrolling authorityhigh court

Judgment

      C/SCA/16419/2025                               ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16419 of 2025

==========================================
                NITINKUMAR JAYKARBHAI MEHTA
                              Versus
            THE J B AND BROTHERS PVT LTD & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SWEETY SAMARA AGP for the Respondent No.2
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 16/02/2026

                               ORAL ORDER

1.      By way of present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated
06.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority in
Appeal No. 120 of 2024, whereby, the learned Authority has partly
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and modified the
order passed by the Controlling Authority by directing the respondent
No.1 to pay Rs.52,262/- with 10% simple interest.


2.      Facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the petitioner was initially
appointed in the services of the respondent No.1, however, he was
terminated by the respondent No.1 on 31.12.2022, since the
respondent No.1 had decided to close down the industry. Therefore,
the petitioner sent Form.I seeking gratuity amount against respondent
No.1 for Rs.1,33,903=00 with 10% simple interest. That, despite
receiving Form.I, the gratuity amount was not paid and therefore,


                                   Page 1 of 4
      C/SCA/16419/2025                            ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




petitioner submitted Form.N before the Controlling Authority, Surat,
whereby the Controlling Authority rejected the gratuity application
filed by the petitioner.


2.1     Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed an
Appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, whereby the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to
the Controlling Authority to decide the same afresh. That, thereafter,
the Controlling Authority after hearing both the sides, passed an order
dated 21.05.2024 in Remand Back Case No. 44 of 2024 (Original
Gratuity Case No.221 of 2023), whereby the application of the
petitioner came to be allowed and the respondent management was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,692/- with 10% simple interest. That,
the respondent management challenged the order passed by
Controlling Authority by filing Appeal No.120 of 2024, whereby the
Appellate Authority partly allowed the Appeal of the respondent No.1
and directed the respondent management to pay a difference amount
of Rs.52,262/- with 10% interest vide order dated 06.02.2025.


3.      Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order and
judgment passed by the learned Controlling Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred this petition.


4.      Heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.


5.      Learned counsel Mr. Mishra has submitted that the impugned
orders passed by the Controlling authority as well as the Appellate
authority are erroneous, illegal and contrary to the facts and records


                                Page 2 of 4
    C/SCA/16419/2025                             ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




of the case. He has submitted that the respondent management has
produced so-called settlement along with the resignation letter before
the Controlling Authority, wherein it has been stated that the
respondent management has paid Due wages, Bonus, Leave
Encashment, Gratuity, Notice Pay, Service dues, Retrenchment
compensation, over-time wages and difference of minimum wages.
Thus, if all these dues are to be counted then it will be more than Rs.6
Lakhs, whereas the respondent management has paid a sum of
Rs.63,894/- by account payee cheque to the petitioner and thus, the
aforesaid amount is not paid towards gratuity and therefore, the
Controlling Authority ought to have directed the respondent
management to pay gratuity amount as per application submitted by
the petitioner and therefore, both the orders are required be modified
by directing to respondent management to the pay the gratuity
amount of Rs.1,33,903/- with 10% simple interest. He has submitted
that Controlling authority as well as the Appellate Authority had
directed the respondent management to give bifurcation of the
amount which the respondent management has paid to the petitioner
pursuant to the resignation submitted by the petitioner, however, the
respondent management had failed to produce the bifurcation of the
aforesaid amount and therefore, the Controlling Authority ought to
have directed the respondent management to pay the gratuity
amount as per the application submitted by the petitioner. Therefore,
both the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority are erroneous, illegal and unjust. He has further
submitted that the respondent management has failed to establish
their case and not produced a single evidence to establish that the
respondent management has paid gratuity amount to the petitioner,
however, this aspect was not appreciated by both the authorities and


                                Page 3 of 4
          C/SCA/16419/2025                                                                 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026




  therefore, both the orders are required to be quashed and set aside
  and the present petition be allowed.


  6.          I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
  and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through
  the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate
  Authority. The Appellate Authority has rightly awarded the amount
  after deducting the amount of Rs.52,430/- already paid by the
  respondent No.1 towards gratuity to the petitioner, which was
  accepted by the petitioner and receipt was also issued in favour of the
  petitioner for the said amount and therefore, the Authorities have not
  committed any infirmity or any illegality while passing the impugned
  orders. Considering all these aspects, this Court is not inclined to
  interfere with the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well
  as the Appellate Authority.


  7.          In the result, the present petition being devoid of any merits,
  deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed.


  8.          If the amount is not deposited by the respondent No.1, the
  same shall be deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date
  of receipt of order of this Court. Once the amount is deposited, the
  same shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioner-workman, after
  verifying his bank details and after following due procedure, through
  RTGS/NEFT.


                                                                        (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 16/02/2026 16:55:27




                                                           Page 4 of 4

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "gratuity"Sign in to search