4.I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the Section '7' of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 when the authority passes any order determining the Gratuity, any person aggrieved by an order may within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government. As per Rule 18 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 the memorandum of appeal shall be submitted to the appellate authority. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal against the said order as per Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, before the appellate authority. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order before the first respondent itself is not maintainable and that was rightly rejected by the first respondent. As per the Payment of Gratuity Act and Rules framed therein against the order passed under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an appeal alone lies under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, the order passed by the first respondent cannot be interfered and the remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal before the appellate authority. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
