D. K. SETH,J. ( 1 ) A proceeding under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was decided ex parte against the Employer. The Employer filed an application for review on the ground that no notice was ever given to him. The said application was rejected on the ground that the Employer did not appear despite notices having been served on him. ( 2 ) MR. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not only taken the ground that no notice was ever served on him but also pointed out that gratuity has since been paid and the receipts were disclosed in respect of such payment in full and final settlement, and those were neither denied by each individual nor those were considered in the said order rejecting the application for review. According to him, Rule 11 (5) of the West Bengal Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1973") provides such jurisdiction to the Authority to review its own order on sufficient cause being shown. Accordingly, the petitioner had shown sufficient cause but that was not considered at all. Only on the ground that notices were served, the application was rejected. ( 3 ) MR. Ghosh, learned counsel for the workmen, on the other hand, contends that only to avoid deposit of the money which is provided, under Section 7 (7) of the said Act the petitioner is shy of preferring an appeal and is attempting to fight on review. Therefore, the same cannot be done. According to him, no review lies except recalling of the ex parte order. He further, contends that there was a diary lodged with the Police Authority with regard to the payment of gratuity. He contends that the- receipts which were obtained either are not genuine or might have been obtained by coercion or duress. ( 4 ) BE that as it may, he contends further that this question can be gone into in appeal. It is not necessary to re-hear the review application since it will delay the process. On this ground the petition should be dismissed. ( 5 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for (he parties, it appears that Rule 11 (5) of the Rules, 1973 provides that an application can be made for recalling an order, if made ex parte. It is not necessary to re-hear the review application since it will delay the process. On this ground the petition should be dismissed. ( 5 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for (he parties, it appears that Rule 11 (5) of the Rules, 1973 provides that an application can be made for recalling an order, if made ex parte. In the proviso it was pointed out that if good cause is shown, in that event, the order may be reviewed or the application may be reheard. Thus, though the Act does not specifically provide for any review, but in the procedural, rules, the review has been provided for. The good cause has not been confined to the service of the notice only. When the Rules did not confine to a particular situation, the good cause should be read as ejusdem generis and it cannot be confined to a particular situation only. The use of the word, "review" also includes review of the order which has been passed, even ex parte, in respect whereof certain materials are produced which might form good cause for such purpose. ( 6 ) THE allegation that gratuity has been paid definitely is a good cause, even if it is contended that the amount shown as gratuity does not cover the gratuity payable in law. Therefore, even if it is received and there is a note, 'in full and final settlement', still it cannot estop the workmen from claiming the balance amount, if the gratuity paid is less than the amount payable in law. There cannot be estoppel against the statute. Secondly, the workmen are at the receiving end and sometimes under the compelling circumstances may be coerced or on account of duress may accept such amount even signing full discharge receipt. But since there cannot be an estoppel against the Statute, such receipt will not discharge the employer from the liability of making payment of gratuity which is statutorily payable as provided in the Act itself. There cannot be any question of bargaining between the parties. But, then, this question ought to have been gone into by the Authority concerned to find out as to the entitlement of the workmen to the amount paid and as to whether such amount represents the total amount of gratuity or not. There cannot be any question of bargaining between the parties. But, then, this question ought to have been gone into by the Authority concerned to find out as to the entitlement of the workmen to the amount paid and as to whether such amount represents the total amount of gratuity or not. Therefore, there were certain grounds on which the order should have been reviewed and could not have been refused on such grounds. ( 7 ) THE existence of a remedy by way of an appeal does not preclude review when review is provided for specifically in the rules. If sufficient grounds are made out, then it is incumbent on the authority concerned to exercise his jurisdiction. He cannot refuse it simply because there is a provision for appeal and in that appeal all points can be gone into. When there exists two procedures without the exclusion of the other it is the person seeking remedy who (sic) has the option and he cannot be excluded from resorting to appeal after the review is disposed of or the other side from preferring appeal if aggrieved. ( 8 ) THE other point that has been objected to by Mr. Ghosh that the petitioner did not turn up in the proceedings and got notice, appears to be a disputed question of fact which this Court cannot go into. The order on the application for review proceeded only on the basis that notices were deemed to have been served and the employer was deemed to have knowledge of the proceedings. The same may be a good cause, but at the same time the allegation that gratuity has been paid is another good cause which has been thoroughly overlooked by the Authority concerned. Even if the notices were served, still if such documents are before the Court which have not been denied or disowned at that point of time, in that event it cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, this application is allowed and disposed off accordingly. The order impugned is hereby quashed. Even if the notices were served, still if such documents are before the Court which have not been denied or disowned at that point of time, in that event it cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, this application is allowed and disposed off accordingly. The order impugned is hereby quashed. ( 10 ) THE matter is now remitted to the Authority concerned for deciding afresh in accordance with the proviso to Sub-rule (5) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1973 as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order after giving opportunities of hearing to respective parties. However, the petitioner herein shall not take any adjournment on any ground whatsoever before the Authority concerned. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the parties shall be at liberty to communicate the gist of this order to the Authority concerned and upon such communication the Authority concerned may proceed accordingly. ( 12 ) THE application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( 13 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.