Judgment :- This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 08.6.2009 passed in W.P.No.7300 of 1999. 2. The grievance of the appellant, ex-employee of the writ petitioner Bank, is that since he was not paid the gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 subsequent to his resignation on 07.5.1986, he approached the second respondent, viz., Assistant Labour Commissioner, Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, who, by his proceedings dated 16.3.1998 in P.G.No.30 of 1997, directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.34,765.62 being interest towards gratuity amount payable to him and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, Regional Labour Commissioner in P.G.A.No.37 of 1998 by order dated 26.3.1999. Challenging the same, the Bank preferred the Writ Petition in W.P.No.7300 of 1999. 3. Before the learned Judge, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that before the gratuity amount could be paid to the employee, a third party filed I.P.No.21 of 1986 before the Insolvency Court, Trichirapalli and obtained an order of interim injunction against the ex-employee from withdrawing the gratuity amount and other amounts due to him and that in view of the said order, the amount was not deposited or paid. 4. The learned single Judge found that the Bank has not paid the gratuity to the third respondent within the stipulated time of 30 days, but, however, modified the impugned order by directing the bank to pay interest at 10% p.a. for the period from 07.5.1986 and till date of order of interim injunction granted against the third respondent in I.P.No.21 of 1987 on the file of the Insolvency Court. Trichy and for the subsequent period between 19.6.1996 and till date of payment of gratuity amount by the Bank. Since it was reported that the entire gratuity amount had already been deposited before the controlling Authority, the learned Judge directed the employee to withdraw the amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the employee has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Management of the Bank made appeal on 12.5.1998 against the order of the Controlling Authority without depositing the amount of Rs.34,765.62. He further submitted that the interim injunction dated 29.3.1988 in I.P.No.21 of 1986 obtained by a third party before the Insolvency Court, Tiruchirappalli, has no bearing to the payment of gratuity. He further submitted that the interim injunction dated 29.3.1988 in I.P.No.21 of 1986 obtained by a third party before the Insolvency Court, Tiruchirappalli, has no bearing to the payment of gratuity. Learned counsel would submit that even today, the appellant is not able to receive the amount. 6. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the payment of gratuity amount was delayed only because of the interim order of injunction granted by the Insolvency Court and, therefore, the Management of the Bank cannot be held responsible to pay any interest on the gratuity amount. 7. Admittedly, the Bank has to pay the gratuity amount due to the appellant as per Sanction 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act within a period of 30 days from the date from which the amount was due. It is not disputed that the interim order of injunction from paying any amount to the appellant was passed by the Insolvency Court, Trichirapalli only on 29.3.1988 and it was at the instance of a third party. In the instant case, the appellant resigned his job with effect from 07.5.1986 and as such, the gratuity amount should have been paid to him before 06.6.1986. Therefore, it is clear that the interim order was passed nearly after one and a half years from the date on which the amount became due. Since the Bank failed to make the payment within the stipulated period, they cannot take shelter under the injunction order passed by the Insolvency Court for the delay in payment. In any case, nothing prevented the Bank from depositing the amount before the statutory authorities. Hence, we are not able to accept the reasons stated by the learned Judge. 8. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is allowed by restoring the order passed by the statutory authorities. 9. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.