ORDER Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. Heard both sides. At the very out set it is stated that the writ petition specially the synopsis portion was not properly drafted. Therefore, the court had to take recourse to the statements made in Annexure 3 to the writ petition, which are admitted by both the parties, to find out the relevant facts of this case. According to this fact, Shri Rajesh Pd. Singh Ex. Rigger working inside the premises of Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (Hereinafter referred to as the H.E.C.) P.O. Dhurwa, Distt. Ranchi filed an application in form "N" under Sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 on 12.1.2001 before the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi for determination and direction to the Chairman-cum-Man aging Director, M/s. H.E.C., Ranchi to pay his granting dues as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It transpires that the said Controlling Authority passed certain orders against that order this writ application has been filed before this Court. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the writ petition is not maintainable as being premature. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Controlling Authority went beyond hi? jurisdiction as he enquired into the matter and decided even the relationship in between the employers and workers. 4. Certain definition of Sections of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as the Act) are necessary to be quoted here for just decision of the case. As per Section 1(4) it applies : (a) to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the proceeding as contract labour (b) to every contractor who employs or who employed on any day of the proceeding twelve months twenty workmen or more workmen. As per Section 1(4) it applies : (a) to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the proceeding as contract labour (b) to every contractor who employs or who employed on any day of the proceeding twelve months twenty workmen or more workmen. As per Section 2(g) "principal employer" means : (i) in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority the head of that officer or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory and where a person has been named as the manager of the factory under the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named (iii) in a mine, the owner or agent of the mine and where a person has been named as the manager of the mine, the person so named, (iv) in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment Section 1(b) : a workman shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour" in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor with or without knowledge of the principal employer; Section 2(c) : defines the employees "completed service" means continuous service as defined in Section 2-A. 5. Then Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act which relates to the dispute arising out of the payment of gratuity. In this regard Section (4)(a) reads as follows : "If there is any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any claim or, in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, the employer shall deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity." 6. On perusal of the aforesaid sections as quoted above it is clear that if the question or admissibility in relation to any employee for payment of gratuity or as to the person who is entitled to receive the gratuity, arises then the controlling authority has to decide the matter. On perusal of the aforesaid sections as quoted above it is clear that if the question or admissibility in relation to any employee for payment of gratuity or as to the person who is entitled to receive the gratuity, arises then the controlling authority has to decide the matter. In this regard Sub- section (4) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is necessary to quote hereinbelow : "The controlling authority shall, after due inquiry and after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the matter or matters in dispute and if, as a result of such inquiry any amount is found to be payable to the employee, the controlling authority shall direct the employer to pay such amount or, as the case may be, such amount as reduced by the amount already deposited by the employer." 7. From the aforesaid provision as quoted above it is clear when a matter with regard to admissibility or payment of gratuity, as the case in hand, arises the competent authority is the controlling authority who is to resolve the disputes under the Act. The controlling authority is empowered to make an enquiry to settle the dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controlling authority went beyond his jurisdiction and make enquiry, took evidence to come a finding and, therefore, his findings are not binding upon the parties. The main question is whether the controlling authority has power to decide whether contract labour is entitled to receive gratuity or not. 8. Both the parties have agreed to prefer an appeal under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the appellate authority. In the circumstance, if the appeal is filed before the appellate authority, the appellate authority is directed to decide the point whether or not the controlling authority had the power to decide the question of admissibility of payment of gratuity to the contract labour and after deciding this issue first, will issue a direction to the controlling authority to decide the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. This exercise must be completed by the appellate authority within two months. 9. With the above direction and observation the writ application is disposed of.