JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated February 4, 2004 holding that since provisions of the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972 were applicable to the two units of the firm taken together, it was under the statutory obligation to pay gratuity to the third respondent (Smt. Gita Mondal) in terms of provisions of that Act. ( 2 ) AFTER working in the Behala Printing unit of the firm for long twenty-two years the third respondent resigned from service in May, 2002. In terms of an arrangement between the firm and the Life Insurance Corporation of india, the Corporation paid her, through the firm, Rs. 8,421/- on account of gratuity. Gratuity was not paid to her in terms of provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the ground that provisions of the Act were not applicable. ( 3 ) THE third respondent submitted an application to the controlling authority alleging that the firm had not paid her gratuity in terms of provisions of the Act, though she was entitled to that. Upon receipt of notice issued by the controlling authority the firm entered appearance and submitted its written objection contending that in view of provisions in Section 1 (3) (b), it having never engaged ten or more persons in its Behala Printing Unit, provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were not applicable to it. With its objection the firm submitted certain documents in support of its case that the Act did not apply to the Unit. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the controlling authority did not record any evidence. The parties also did not submit any application praying for opportunity of leading evidence, oral and documentary. On the basis of the third respondent's application and the petitioner's written objection the controlling authority gave the impugned decision holding that the persons engaged in the behala Printing Unit and Mirza Ghalib Street office of the firm taken together, having exceeded ten or more, provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would apply to it, particularly when provisions of the Employees' provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952 and the Employees' State Insurance act, 1948 had been applied to it. ( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner that provisions of the other statutes had been applied to the printing unit and office treating them as separate establishments and on the basis of the applications seeking voluntary coverage was turned down by the controlling officer noticing want of conclusive proof. In my view, the authority did not proceed with the matter properly. There was no scope to prove the facts, unless the parties were called upon to adduce oral and documentary evidence. In my view, the controlling authority was under an obligation to ascertain from the parties whether they would like to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases, particularly when the third respondent was appearing in person (as I am tola by her counsel ). ( 6 ) IN terms of provisions in Section 7 (4) (c)of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 it was the statutory duty of the controlling authority to make due enquiry for determining the matters in dispute. Provisions in the West Bengal Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, Rule 11 (4) cast a statutory obligation on the controlling authority to examine the question of recording evidence of witnesses. While discharging statutory duties enjoined by a social welfare legislation, in my view, the authority was required to call upon the petitioner, the employer, to prove its case by leading oral and documentary evidence or to face consequences. It must be held that the provisions in Section 7 (4) (c) and Rule 11 (4)cast such an obligation. ( 7 ) HOW the dispute before the authority is to be determined effectively, is to be decided by the authority himself, and he must not leave the matter to the parties. In my view, such disputed questions of fact as had arisen in the case before the authority, particularly connected with the question of applicability of the Act to the employer, should be determined on the basis of evidence recorded by the authority, unless the parties before him invite him to decide the dispute on the basis of the application and the written objection filed by them. In such a case, the controlling authority must direct the employer to produce necessary original records so that he may unveil the truth for benefit of the employee. In such a case, the controlling authority must direct the employer to produce necessary original records so that he may unveil the truth for benefit of the employee. ( 8 ) IN the present case the controlling authority did not proceed on the basis that the parties before him did not want to adduce oral and documentary evidence. He rather proceeded, it seems, even without calling upon the parties to adduce evidence, to determine the disputed questions of fact on the basis of the third respondent's application and the written objection of the firm. In my view, he did not follow the proper procedure. In exercise of his power to make due enquiry, he ought to have examined original records of the employer. I think the order should be set aside directing him to decide the matter afresh. ( 9 ) FOR these reasons, I set aside the impugned order and allow the writ petition to the extent. I direct the controlling authority to give a fresh decision in the dispute after recording oral and documentary evidence that may be led by the third respondent and the petitioner in support of their respective canon. I direct the petitioner to pay costs to the third respondent assessed at Rs. 1000/ -. The payment shall be made within a fortnight. The controlling authority shall give the decision within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. ( 10 ) URGENT certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for, within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the Section concerned.