ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is claiming interest on the amount of gratuity payable to him, which has been denied by the respondent. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 refused to allow interest over the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner, vide order dated 20.8.2010 passed in Application No.36.(38)/2009.E.4 and also the Appellate Authority by the Appellate Order dated 14.4.2011 passed in PG Appeal/(33)/ 2010 confirmed the order of Original Authority rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was superannuated by the respondent w.e.f. 15.9.1998 vide notice dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure-1). The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute on 14.7.1998 for correction of his date of birth as 20.3.1946 in place of 15.9.1938. The said industrial dispute was referred before the Tribunal, Dhanbad where the same was registered as Reference Case No. 294 of 2000, which was finally answered against the petitioner on 17.1.2010. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.641 of 2008 seeking direction upon the respondents for payment of post-retiral dues, which was disposed of on 13.12.2008, Annexure-3, by directing the respondent to release the admitted retiral dues to the petitioner within stipulated time without prejudice to the petitioner's claim subject to the adjudication of the reference case by the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. It is the contention of the petitioner that after aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondent deposited the amount of gratuity before the Controlling Authority on 15.12.2008 and he was informed to make a claim before the Controlling Authority. Thereafter, he preferred his application under Section 7(2) & (3) of the P.G. Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority seeking payment of gratuity with statutory interest. Though the controlling authority directed to make payment of gratuity amount but request for interest was rejected vide order dated 20.8.2010, Annexure-5. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority being P.G. Appeal No. 33 of 2010 for a direction to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. The said appeal has also been ejected vide order dated 14.4.2011, Annexure-7. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority being P.G. Appeal No. 33 of 2010 for a direction to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. The said appeal has also been ejected vide order dated 14.4.2011, Annexure-7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972, it was an obligation of the employer to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person about the same and also to the Controlling Authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. It is contended that even though the petitioner may not have made an application for the payment of the said amount earlier, but it was the duty of the employer to arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL, however, submits that after his retirement in year 1998, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute and the Reference was made before the Industrial Tribunal, which was decided in 2010 only. Petitioner came before this Court for the payment of post retiral dues in the year 2008 and filed an application for the payment of gratuity on 26.12.2008 only and as such, the respondent-authorities were not responsible for the delay in payment of the gratuity. The impugned order is, therefore, passed in a proper manner as the respondent is not liable to pay the interest for the delay in payment of gratuity, which was occasioned on account of litigation pursued by him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is true that the petitioner had raised the industrial Dispute before the Competent Tribunal in relation to his date of premature retirement, but Section 7(3A) stipulates that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. Apparently, the respondent-BCCL has not obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for delay in payment of gratuity amount even on the ground that the petitioner himself was pursuing the reference case against them. Apparently, the respondent-BCCL has not obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for delay in payment of gratuity amount even on the ground that the petitioner himself was pursuing the reference case against them. Under Section 7(3) of the P.G. Act, 1972, it is the duty of the employer to arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to him the gratuity is payable. The respondents themselves had made the petitioner retire on 15.9.1998 and they had statutory obligation to deposit the gratuity amount before the controlling authority, which they did after passing of the order of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 641 of 2008. Though, the petitioner might have been pursuing the industrial reference but on the basis of its statutory obligation, the respondent itself could have obtained permission from the controlling authority which in this case does not seem to have been taken. In these circumstances, the impugned order denying interest on the delayed payment of gratuity does not appear to be sustainable in law as well as on facts. Therefore, the impugned orders to that effect are set aside. The respondents are directed to pay statutory interest over the gratuity amount for the period of delay it was withheld to the petitioner as per the Gratuity Act, 1972. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. .