Judgment :- (1). The facts are that the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act") on 17th March, 2004 passed an order directing the petitioner-company to pay a sum of Rs. 32.192/- as gratuity and Rs 32,192/- as interest to the respondent No.4. Dissatisfied, the petitioner for preferring an appeal had applied for certified copy of the said order. After receiving the certified copy, the petitioner-company preferred an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act. The memorandum of appeal was submitted before the Controlling Authority along with a cheque for Rs.32,1927- 6eing the amount determined by the said authority. The Controlling Authority refused to accept the same, insisted upon the payment of the entire gratuity along with the interest amounting to Rs. 64,384/- and refused to grant the certificate which is a precondition for preferring an appeal by an employer under sub-section 7 of Section 7 of the Act. (2). The Appellate Authority under the Act by its order dated 31.8.2004 did not admit the appeal. The said order is as under: - "The instant appeal by the employer is not admitted for non- compliance of Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, that is, at the time of preferring the appeal the appellant employer has not produced a certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under subsection (4) or deposited with the Appellate Authority such amount as directed by the Controlling Authority, i.e. Rs. 64,384/- (Rs. Sixty four thousand three hundred eighty four) only." (3). The company sought for a review of the order dated 31.8.2004. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 28.6.2005 rejected the prayer for review. The said order is extracted hereunder: - "The earlier order dated 31.8.2004 stands. The Appellate Authority has no power to segregate interest amount from gratuity as determined by the Controlling Authority. The review petition is rejected." (4). Thereafter, the Controlling Authority issued a notice dated 4th August, 2005 directing the petitioner to deposit the said sum of Rs. 64.384/-. (5). Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the writ petition challenging the orders dated 31st August, 2004 and 28th June, 2005 and the notice dated 4th August, 2005. (6). The short point of law is whether gratuity payable shall include interest. (7). Mr. 64.384/-. (5). Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the writ petition challenging the orders dated 31st August, 2004 and 28th June, 2005 and the notice dated 4th August, 2005. (6). The short point of law is whether gratuity payable shall include interest. (7). Mr. Partha Bhanja Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner referring to the facts submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount as admittedly payable as gratuity as enumerated under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 7 of the Act. Moreover, it is evident from a reading of sub-section 3A of Section 7 that gratuity payable cannot include interest. Therefore, by appropriate orders the Controlling Authority should be directed to accept the said sum of Rs.32,192/- and to issue necessary certificate. In support of his submissions reference was made to a judgment in Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Labour Department and Others reported in 2002 (III) CLR 393 . (8). Mrs. Jayanti Dhar Quader, learned Advocate on behalf of the State submitted that the Appellate Authority has no power to deduct interest from the amount fixed by the Controlling Authority. (9). Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. (10). I find that the petitioner had denied its liability to pay interest along with the amount relating to gratuity. Under Section 7(7) of the Act, a person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority. However, the second proviso to Section 7(7) stipulates that no appeal shall, be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect that the appellant had deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited either under sub-section (4) or deposits with the Appellate Authority such amount. Sub-section (4) is as under: - "(4)(a) If there is any dispute to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, 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." (Emphasis supplied) (11). A perusal of the sub-section reveals the employer is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority the amount he admits to be payable as gratuity. (12). In the present case, the employer admits that a sum of Rs.32,194/- is payable for the purpose of preferring the appeal and in terms of sub-section 4(a) had forwarded the cheque. In my view, the Appellate Authority erred in passing the impugned order dated 31st August, 2004 in dismissing the appeal and the order dated 28th June, 2005 rejecting the review petition since the employer was ready to deposit such amount he admits. Besides, I find this proposition is also covered by the judgment of this Court in Gloster Jute Mills (supra). Moreover, sub-section (2) of Section 7 lays down as soon as "gratuity becomes payable" it shall be determined by the employer. Interest becomes payable under Section 7(3A) of the Act if gratuity is not paid to an employee by the employer within the time specified in sub-section (3). Sub-section (4)(a) of the said section postulates in case of "any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable", the employer shall deposit with the "Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him". Therefore, sub-section (4) (a) relates to a dispute regarding the quantum or amount of gratuity payable which is distinct and separate from the question of payment of interest under Section 7(3A) for belated payment of gratuity. It is, thus, clear that "interest" cannot form part of "gratuity" payable. Sub sections (3A) and (4)(a) have different applications in different spheres. Therefore, in view of the findings as above, in my view the Appellate Authority erred in passing the orders dated 31.8.2004 and 28.6.2005 and consequently, the memo dated 4.8.2005 is invalid and illegal. (13). Thus, the orders dated 31.8.2004, 28.6.2005 and the memo dated 4.8.2005 Annexures P-3, P-6 and P-7 respectively to the writ petition are set aside and quashed. The Controlling Authority is directed to accept the amount of Rs. 32,192/- tendered by the petitioner-company and shall issue necessary certificate. Thereafter, upon production of such certificate by the petitioner-company, the Appellate Authority under the Act shall proceed with the appeal. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.