Judgment :- The petitioner is an employer. They have come forward to challenge the order of the second respondent- Controlling Authority, dated 05.07.2000. By the said order, the second respondent rejected the petitioners request for re-hearing of the case in P.G.Case No.8/99 filed by the first respondent. Unfortunately, the first respondent is no more as he had passed away on 08.01.2002, pending the writ petition. 2. The petitioner has filed WPMP No.836 of 2009 to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased first respondent on record. That application has been ordered today. Mr.S.Ravi, learned counsel who was originally appearing for the deceased first respondent takes notice for all the legal representatives. 3. The first respondent late R.S.Lakshmanan had filed a gratuity claim for the services rendered by him. His application was numbered as P.G.8/99 and notice was issued to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not appear before the authority, an ex parte order came to be passed on 15.02.1999. When the said order was sent to the petitioner-Management by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD), it was returned with an endorsement refused. Thereafter, the original first respondent initiated revenue recovery proceedings for recovering the amount of gratuity for a sum of Rs.19,643/-. Accordingly, the second respondent requested the District Collector, Chennai to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. 4. Pursuant to the direction, the District Collector by a communication dated 08.03.2000 demanded the petitioner to pay the amount failing which the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk was directed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. It is at this stage, the petitioner thought they should question the ex parte order. Therefore, they filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and for a re-hearing of the case. In doing so, there was a delay of 359 days in filing the said application. 5. Under Rule 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973, an ex parte order can be passed. In case, the aggrieved party wants to set aside the order, an application should be filed within 30 days. In the affidavit filed in support of the condonation application, the petitioner claimed that they came to know about the proceedings only from the date they received a notice from the District Collector dated 08.03.2000. Therefore, they wanted the delay to be condoned. In the affidavit filed in support of the condonation application, the petitioner claimed that they came to know about the proceedings only from the date they received a notice from the District Collector dated 08.03.2000. Therefore, they wanted the delay to be condoned. However, the second respondent-Appellate Authority held that the petitioner was aware of the ex party order dated 15.02.1999. When the same was sent by RPAD, the postal cover came back with an endorsement refused. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to state that they were aware of the proceedings only from March 2000 and not from March 1999. The fact that such a cover came back unserved was not denied in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Therefore, the attempt by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay, which is acceptable by the authority cannot be interfered with by this Court. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the amount has already been deposited with the authority. In the light of the dismissal of the writ petition, the legal representatives who have come on record in this writ petition as party respondents are entitled to withdraw the amount.