Judgment Since common issue arises for determination in these writ petitions and the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in all the matters are similar, the writ petitions are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. The respondent no.1 in all the writ petitions had filed applications for payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority. It was the case of the employees that they were Bidi Rollers, who had worked with the petitioner for 28 years. They claimed to have earned Rs.30/-per day towards wages. 3. The petitioner contested the claim of the respondent no.1-employees and denied the tenure of their service. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1-employees were not paid daily wages but, they were paid on piece-rate basis. The Controlling Authority, however, allowed the claim of the respondent no.1-employees in part and quantified the gratuity payable to each of the respondent no.1-employees on the basis of the wages claimed to have been paid to the respondent no.1-employees at Rs.30/-per day. The respondent no.1employees approached the Appellate Authority seeking enhancement of the amount, which was payable to them towards gratuity. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeals filed by the respondent no.1-employees and directed the petitioner to pay a higher sum to the respondent no.1-employees towards gratuity. Though there was some delay in filing the appeals and the respondent no.1 to all the petitions had not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, the Appellate Authority condoned the delay while allowing the appeals filed by the respondent no.1employees. 4. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority was not justified in entertaining the appeals, which were filed beyond the period of limitation and were not accompanied by applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority mechanically condoned the delay in the absence of any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals and without recording any reasons, much less, any cogent reasons for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority mechanically condoned the delay in the absence of any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals and without recording any reasons, much less, any cogent reasons for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the appeals were admittedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the delay could not have been condoned by the Appellate Authority mechanically, in the absence of any applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals and without recording any cogent reasons for condoning the delay. 5. It appears, on a reading of the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority, that the Appellate Authority has mechanically condoned the delay in filing the appeals without recording a single reason for condoning the delay. It is necessary to note that the respondent no.1-employees had neither filed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals nor had stated the reasons for belatedly approaching the Appellate Authority in the Memorandum of Appeal. Since the delay in filing the appeals remained unexplained, the Appellate Authority could not have condoned the delay, specially when the respondent no.1-employees had not filed any applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals nor had they explained the delay in filing the appeals in the memorandum of appeal filed by them. The appeals could not have been decided by the Appellate Authority on merits by mechanically condoning the delay in filing the appeal in the aforesaid set of facts. The orders passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. 6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act are quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeals afresh on merits after giving an opportunity to the respondent no.1-employees to explain the delay in filing the appeals. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 7. Since the petitioner had deposited the amount payable in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority in this Court in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in December-2002, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited.