1. Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the appeal Authority in PGA Appeal No. 01 of 2021 filed by the petitioner in case of its employee Sri Guman Singh.

3. Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that a long delay over nine years has been erroneously condoned by the Controlling Authority and even fundamental defect has been ignored by the appeal Authority Authority. Second it has been submitted, no merit consideration has been made by the appeal Authority. A wholly cryptic/ laconic order has been passed without dealing with any of the grounds of the appeal pleaded and pressed by the petitioner. In that regard reference has been made to the memo of appeal (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition). Third, it has been submitted that in any case no interest could have been awarded for the period of delay caused by the respondent in making the claim.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the delay in making the claim was sought to be Neutral Citation No. - 2022:AHC:70997 condoned by a separate application. Notice was issued to the petitioner to file objections both to the delay and to the claim on merits. The petitioner appeared before the Controlling Authority and filed objections on merits only. Therefore, the delay was condoned. That order does not suffer from any illegality. As to the merit issue, it has been submitted that the matter is wholly covered by a decision in U.P. Forest Corporation, Lucknow and another Vs. Appellate Authority; 2020 (167) FLR 921. That order is claimed to have been passed following the order of the Supreme Court in Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.; 2018 (157) FLR 477. [LQ/SC/2018/381] Therefore, the respondent was entitled to payment of gratuity for the entire length of service rendered by him including the period when he was engaged as a daily wage employee. As to interest, it has been submitted that the same is statutory. Same cannot be denied to the workman.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record. In the first place, no counter affidavit is required to be filed in view of the fact that the present order is being passed on the strength of the facts recorded in the appeal order itself. Also no inference is sought to be drawn on the merits of the issue. Accordingly, the matter has been proceeded.

6. In the first place, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as to delay can not be accepted. It is clearly borne out from the record that in the first notice issued by the Controlling Authority dated 07.09.2020 for the date 28.09.2020 adequate notice was given to the petitioner with respect to the delay condonation application filed by the respondent. Objections thereto were also called. Upon filing appearance, the petitioner chose to file objections as to merits of the claim and not as to delay. Thereupon specific order came to be passed by the Controlling Authority condoning the delay in making the claim. In view of the procedure followed by the Controlling Authority and also in view of the fact that the Payment of Gratuity Act is part of welfare legislation and further in view of the fact that payment of gratuity is a statutory obligation on the petitioner, no good ground exists to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Controlling Authority in condoning the delay. All that the petitioner may be heard in that regard is with respect to the award of interest for the period of delay caused by the respondent- workman. That may be dealt with later.

7. On the second aspect, while it may be true that an employee may remain entitled to payment of gratuity for the period during which he may have rendered services on a daily wage engagement, at the same time the period of engagement as daily wage employee would have to be computed for the purposes of computation of gratuity amount payable. Here, the petitioner would refer to paragraph no.8 of the memo of appeal to submit that the length/period of engagement was disputed by the petitioner. In that regard learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the gratuity has been correctly computed.

8. Be that as it may, once the issue of length of engagement had been raised before the appeal Authority, the said authority was obligated to record a clear cut finding in that regard. That finding would have a material bearing on the computation of gratuity

9. Perusal of the impugned order does not inspire confidence. After noting the submissions advanced, at the fag end of the order almost in the last sentence itself it has been recorded that the order passed by the Controlling Authority does not merit any interference.

10. An appeal Authority faced with the challenge to the order passed by the Controlling Authority may not be at liberty to decide the appeal on a mere observation that the order impugned (before it) does not suffer from any error. The appeal authority offers the only forum of challenge to the order of the Controlling Authority. There is no second appeal under the statute. Therefore, the appeal Authority was obligated to record cogent reasons to deal with the objections raised by the petitioner, on the merits. Here, it may noted that such reasoning does exist with respect to the challenge raised to the delay condonation.

11. However, it has escaped the attention of the appeal Authority to record reasons to deal with the merit objections raised by the petitioner. Also, it has remained to be examined by the Appeal Authority if the respondent workman would be entitled to interest for the entire period including the period of delay in making the claim.

12. Accordingly, the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by respondent no.2 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appeal Authority to pass a fresh order only with respect to merits i.e. computation of the amount of gratuity and, also, computation of interest thereon including the length of time for which interest may be awarded. The above exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the appeal Authority, by either party. The delay in filing the claim as has been condoned does not warrant any further reconsideration.

12. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.