JUDGMENT : R.K. Batta, J.—The short question for determination in this writ petition is whether the gratuity payable to an employee u/s 39 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishments Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the said Act) can be recovered by filing an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though before the Labour Court the question was as to whether the establishment of respondent 2 was covered under the said Act, the said challenge has not been pressed before me. The Labour Court had on perusal of the law on the subject, came to the conclusion that the establishment of respondent 2 was a commercial establishment and as such, the said Act was applicable. 2. In the application filed u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner had sought recovery of gratuity, recovery of unpaid salary and recovery of illegal deduction, yet the dispute at the time of arguments before this Court was restricted to claim relating to gratuity. The Labour Court had, of course, ordered payment of unpaid salary to the tune of Rs. 346.15 with 12 per cent interest per annum on the sum from the date of order till final payment. 3. Learned Advocate Sri N. Sardessai, appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged before me that the said Act does not even by implication, bar the remedy of recovery of gratuity by filing an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on Lal and Co. Vs. Kulkarni (R.N.) and Others, , State of Punjab Vs. Labour Court Jullunder and Others, and Kohinoor Tobacco Products (Private) Ltd., Adyal v. Second Labour Court, Nagpur and Ors., 1986 (2) LLN 490. 4. On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae, Sri C.A. Ferreira, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur and Ors. (supra), has urged before me that Chapter VIII of the said Act provides for complete mechanism for recovery of gratuity and the position under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is also similar and, as such, an application u/s 33-C(2) is not maintainable. According to him, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kohinoor Tobacco Products (Private) Ltd., Adyalv. Second Labour Court, Nagpur, and Ors. According to him, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kohinoor Tobacco Products (Private) Ltd., Adyalv. Second Labour Court, Nagpur, and Ors. (supra), on which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioner, is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case, since Section 21 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, states that without prejudice to any other mode of recovery an application can be made for recovery of bonus under a settlement or award or agreement to the appropriate Government which is authorised to issue certificate for that amount to the Collector, who is duty-bound to proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. It was also pointed out by him that in accordance with Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, a dispute thereunder shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also submitted that the judgment of this Court in Lal and Company v. R.N. Kulkarni and Ors. (supra), also cannot be applied to the matter under consideration since the judgment therein is based upon the provisions contained in the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. According to him, the petition is devoid of any merit and it should be dismissed. 5. The substantive provision for payment of gratuity is Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Section 7(4)(b) of this Act provides that where there is dispute with regard to any matter or matters regarding the eligibility for payment of gratuity, the employer or employee or any other person raising the dispute, may make an application to the controlling authority for deciding the dispute. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur, and Ors. (supra), had examined whether an application claiming gratuity could be filed before the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Apex Court has laid down that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a self-contained code incorporating all essential provisions relating to payment of gratuity which can be claimed under that Act and its provisions impliedly exclude recourse to any other statute for that purpose. The following observations of the Apex Court illustrate in detail the conclusion arrived at by the Apex Court, in paras 7 and 8 State of Punjab Vs. Labour Court Jullunder and Others,. "7. The following observations of the Apex Court illustrate in detail the conclusion arrived at by the Apex Court, in paras 7 and 8 State of Punjab Vs. Labour Court Jullunder and Others,. "7. It is apparent that the Payment of Gratuity Act enacts a complete code containing detailed provisions covering all the essential features of a scheme for payment of gratuity. It creates the right to payment of gratuity, indicates when the right will accrue, and lays down the principles for quantification of the gratuity. It provides further for recovery of the amount, and contains an especial provision that compound interest at nine per cent per annum will be payable on delayed payments. For the enforcement of its provisions, the Act provides for the appointment of a controlling authority, who is entrusted with the task of administering the Act. The fulfilment of the rights and obligations of the parties are made his responsibility, and he has been invested with an amplitude of power for the full discharge of that responsibility. Any error committed by him can be corrected in appeal by the appropriate Government or an appellate authority particularly constituted under the Act. 8. Upon all these considerations, the conclusions is inescapable that Parliament intended that proceedings for payment of gratuity due under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be taken under that Act and not under any other. That being so, it must be held that the applications filed by the employees-respondents u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act did not he, and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of them. On that ground, this appeal must succeed." It was, therefore, held that application for recovery of gratuity would not lie u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. 6. The petitioner had claimed his legal dues including gratuity u/s 39 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishments Act, 1973, and had filed his application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 39 of the said Act provides for payment of gratuity. Section 40 provides for appointment of authority to hear and decide appeals. Section 42 provides for appointment of authority to hear and decide claims arising out of deductions from the employees, etc. Section 45 also provides for an appeal. Section 39 of the said Act provides for payment of gratuity. Section 40 provides for appointment of authority to hear and decide appeals. Section 42 provides for appointment of authority to hear and decide claims arising out of deductions from the employees, etc. Section 45 also provides for an appeal. By Notification No. 1/68/75-LAB (S.E.)/1059, dated August 25, 1975, Government of Goa in exercise of powers u/s 42 of the said Act has appointed Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margo, as judicial authority to hear and decide all claims arising out of gratuity payable under the Act to the employees in any establishment in the District of Goa. Section 43(4) of the said Act provides for recovery of amount directed to be paid by the judicial authority. Thus, the Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishments Act, 1973, like the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, provides a complete machinery to determine questions relating to payment of gratuity and like the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishments Act, 1973, is a complete code in itself and, as such, an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be maintainable. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner had urged before me that the jurisdiction in so far as questions relating to payment and recovery of gratuity is concerned, concurrent and the jurisdiction vested u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has not been specifically, or by implication excluded. There is no merit in this submission, in view of the conclusion arrived at in the previous paragraph. The judgments of this Court upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the petitioner, cannot be applied to the case under consideration. 8. In Lal and Company v. R.N. Kulkarni and Ors., (supra), the decision was rendered on the basis of provisions contained in the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act and the Payment of Wages Act. The matter in the said case did not relate to payment of gratuity. Moreover, there are specific provisions relating to payment of gratuity, disputes relating to gratuity and recovery of the same in the Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishments Act, 1973, which would exclude the application of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kohinoor Tobacco Products (Private) Ltd. Adyal v. Second Labour Court, Nagpur, and Ors. 9. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kohinoor Tobacco Products (Private) Ltd. Adyal v. Second Labour Court, Nagpur, and Ors. (supra), dealt with the controversy relating to the recovery of bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act. Section 21 of the Payment of Bonus Act specifically provides that, "without prejudice to any other mode of recovery", an application can be filed for recovery of bonus under the Act. Moreover, in terms of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, it was found that a dispute relating to payment of bonus under this Act shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of this, the Full Bench of this Court had held that though Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is a complete code, so far as the right to bonus is concerned, yet it is not a complete code so far remedies are concerned and, as such application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for claiming minimum bonus u/s 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, is maintainable under given circumstances. The ruling obviously cannot be applied to the petition under consideration, since the Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishments Act, 1973, does not contemplate any alternative mode of recovery, like Section 21 of the Payment of Bonus Act, that the remedy provided under Chap. VIII is without prejudice to any other mode of recovery. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged. In the facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.