ORDER : Pritinker Diwaker, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28-1-2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 2 directing the Petitioner to pay the entire amount of gratuity to Respondent No. 1 along with compound interest @ 15% in view of the Provisions of Section 8 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1972'). The Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27-1-2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) dismissing the appeal as preferred by Respondent No. 1 but giving liberty to him for approaching to the Controlling Authority for any less payment of gratuity and for its recovery. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 was an employee in the establishment of the Petitioner and at the time of retirement he was working as Senior Manager. He took retirement from the Petitioner's establishment under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 31-5-1997. According to the Petitioner, after retirement the Respondent No. 1 was entitled for the gratuity amount of Rs. 1,00,000 but as the Petitioner was facing acute financial crisis, the same could not be paid to the Respondent No. 1 immediately. The Respondent No. 1 filed a case before the Competent Authority (Respondent No. 2), which was registered as Case No. RP-48 (136)/2000 on 25-9-2000, vide Annexure P-2 and the said Competent Authority passed an order awarding Rs. 1,00,000 with simple interest @ 10% in his favour. Despite this order having been passed on 25-9-2000, the gratuity amount could not be paid to Respondent No. 1 and thereafter the RRC was issued by the Tehsildar, Durg on 18-7-2001 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,40,000. However, the payment was not made by the Petitioner immediately after the issuance of RRC, it was made on 25-9-2002 in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Subsequently, on 30-12-2003 Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal u/s 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) which was dismissed on 27-1-2004, vide Annexure P-4 on the ground of delay. Subsequently, on 30-12-2003 Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal u/s 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) which was dismissed on 27-1-2004, vide Annexure P-4 on the ground of delay. However, an observation was made by it that "the Appellant may however approach Controlling Authority for any less payment of gratuity and for its recovery etc." Pursuant to this observation of the Appellate Authority, on 26-3-2004 an application was filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Controlling Authority (ALC) and after hearing the parties on 28-1-2005, vide Annexure P-1, the order impugned has been passed by it directing the Petitioner to pay the gratuity amount along with compound interest @ 15%. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that firstly there was an inordinate delay in filing the appeal by Respondent No. 1 and once the Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to again make any such observation giving liberty to Respondent No. 1 for approaching the Controlling Authority for any less payment. He further submits that the Respondent No. 1 cannot take the benefit of the Act of 1972 because immediately after issuance of RRC the entire payment was made to the Respondent No. 1 on 25-9-2002. He further submits that once the order dated 25-9-2000 (Annexure P-2) was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 27-1-2004 vide Annexure P-4, the passing of the impugned order dated 28-1-2005 (Annexure P-1) is in fact, reviewing its own order and the same is not permissible under the law. Provisions of the Act of 1972 is not attracted to the present case because RRC issued on 18-7-2001 was already honoured on 25-9-2002. 4. On the other hand opposing the averments made by the Counsel for the Petitioner it has been argued by the Counsel for Respondents that the orders impugned are strictly in accordance with law as present is a case where Respondent No. 1 has been denied legitimate dues for no fault on his part and was not paid a penny towards his gratuity till 25-9-2002. 5. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Undisputedly, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner to make the payment of gratuity. Section 8 of the Act of 1972 reads as under : 8. 5. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Undisputedly, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner to make the payment of gratuity. Section 8 of the Act of 1972 reads as under : 8. Recovery of gratuity.- If the amount of gratuity payable under this Act is not paid by the employer, within the prescribed time, to the person entitled thereto, the Controlling Authority shall, on an application made to it in this behalf by the aggrieved person, issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall recover the same, together with compound interest thereon, at such rate as the Central Government may, by notification, specify, from the date of expiry of the prescribed time as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled thereto: Provided that the Controlling Authority shall, before issuing a certificate under this section, give the employer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the issue of such certificate: Provided further that the amount of interest payable under this section shall, in no case exceed the amount of gratuity payable under this Act. Conduct of the Petitioner reflects that Respondent No. 1 retired on 31-5-1997 and he was entitled for the full gratuity amount of Rs. 1,00,000 by 30-6-1997 instead of making the payment of the same on the ground of alleged financial crisis the payment was withheld and the Respondent No. 1 was compelled to approach the Competent Authority by filing the case and the said Competent Authority passed an order in his favour on 25-9-2000 vide Annexure P-2 directing the Petitioner to pay the amount of gratuity with @ 10% simple interest. Even thereafter when the Petitioner did not make payment and kept quiet, ultimately the RRC was issued vide Annexure P-3 but the Petitioner again did not make the payment immediately to Respondent No. 1 and ultimately after more than one year the RRC, was honoured on 25-9-2002. Thus, for about five years, the Respondent No. 1 was denied his legitimate claim for no fault on his part. Under the compelling circumstances, he preferred and appeal before the Appellate Authority. Though the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, liberty was given to the Respondent No. 1 to approach the Controlling Authority again for any less payment of gratuity and for its recovery etc. Under the compelling circumstances, he preferred and appeal before the Appellate Authority. Though the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, liberty was given to the Respondent No. 1 to approach the Controlling Authority again for any less payment of gratuity and for its recovery etc. Taking the benefit of this observation, the Respondent No. 1 again approached the Controlling Authority and thereafter the Controlling Authority passed the order granting @ 15% compound interest in favour of the Respondent No. 1 considering the provisions of the Act of 1972. 7. I find no force in the argument of the Counsel for the Petitioner that the provisions of the Act of 1972 would not come into play after RRC being honoured by the Petitioner on 25-9-2002. This act of the Petitioner in not paying the amount of gratuity within time was its own act and for that the Respondent No. 1 cannot be made to suffer. The Petitioner was obliged to make the payment of gratuity in favour of Respondent No. 1 immediately after granting v. to the Respondent No. 1 but the Petitioner had unnecessarily taken time for making the said payment till 25-9-2002. The action not to pay gratuity was one of the Petitioner's making and it was an issue which failed. Thus, any action which the Petitioner may have brought, and it proved unsuccessful, ought not to be at the disadvantage or inconvenience of the employee so as to render the intention and purpose of the Act, aforesaid, redundant. For delayed payment, in reference to the context, the employee is entitled to receive gratuity together with compound interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum. For the purposes of this Act should an employer lay an action to stall the payment of gratuity and the action, ultimately fails, the employee is not to suffer on the hazards of litigation. 8. Thus, effect has to be given to Section 8 of the Act, in its simplicity. When an employee becomes entitled to receive gratuity and gratuity is not paid by the employer then the intention of the enactment is that it must be paid to the employee with compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 8. Thus, effect has to be given to Section 8 of the Act, in its simplicity. When an employee becomes entitled to receive gratuity and gratuity is not paid by the employer then the intention of the enactment is that it must be paid to the employee with compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum. It was not intended to involve an employee in a complicated calculation of interest which may have accrued at the back for the period of an interim order during which gratuity was not paid to the employee. As far as the employee is concerned it is delayed payment. Thus, an employee must receive the amount in accordance with the intention as expressed in Section 8. In so far as the employee is concerned the enactment must take its course in its simplicity that the payment of gratuity which has been stipulated and determined must be delivered with interest as stipulated in Section 8 of the Act aforesaid. 9. Thus, the order impugned directing the Petitioner to pay the amount of gratuity to Respondent No. 1 being in consonance with the provision of Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is just and proper and does not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly, the petition does not involve any merit and being so it is liable to be dismissed. Let it be recorded as such. Needless to say that the Petitioner would pay the said amount of gratuity along with compound interest @ 15% as per order of the Appellate Authority.