JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Rule. Learned Advocates for the respondents waive on behalf of respective respondents. Heard Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner- Authority, Mr.Yogen N. Pandya, learned Advocate for the contesting respondent No. 1 and Mr. Rahul Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State-Authorities. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Ahmedabad under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, dated 04.04.2013 in Appeal No. 03 of 2013. 3. The relevant facts, as emerging from record, are as under. 3.1 The respondent employee was in the employment of Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service as a driver from 14.06.1967 to 30.09.2002. In the year, 1974, his service was terminated and in the departmental appeal, he was reinstated in service afresh, as a driver. Thus, at the time of retirement of the respondent workman, there were three different spells of his service. At the time of his retirement in the year 2002, the respondent was treated to be in service from 1981 to 2002 and he was ordered to be paid gratuity by the Controlling Authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, and the said payment was made, which is not the subject matter of this petition. 3.2 Independently, the respondent had claimed before the Labour Court that his service be considered continuous from the year 1967, till his retirement in the year 2002 which was rejected. 3.3 The respondent had moved the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, again in the year 2012 and claimed that he be paid gratuity from the year 1967 to 2002, after adjusting the amount which is already paid in the year 2003-2004 pursuant to the earlier round of litigation. 3.4 The Controlling Authority accepted the claim of the respondent in part. For the service of the period from 14.06.1967 to 08.12.1974 the petitioner was ordered to pay an amount ofRs.1575/-. At that time, the petitioner authority had opposed the application, since it was after delay of about 38 years. The Controlling Authority however, condoned the delay and granted relief to the extent of payment ofRs.1575/-, the principal amount of gratuity. The Controlling Authority however, refused to grant interest on the said amount. 3.5 The respondent challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 03 of 2013. The Controlling Authority however, condoned the delay and granted relief to the extent of payment ofRs.1575/-, the principal amount of gratuity. The Controlling Authority however, refused to grant interest on the said amount. 3.5 The respondent challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 03 of 2013. The petitioner authority, however did not challenge the order of the Controlling Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.04.2013, granted three fold reliefs to the respondent. (1)Rs.12,105/- as difference of gratuity amount for the period from 1981 to 2002 (2)Rs.72,630/- as interest towards both- the gratuity ofRs.12,105/- as ordered by (1) above and also on the amount which was already paid towards gratuity before a decade in the earlier round of litigation, and (3) interest at the rate of 10% from 01.10.2002 till date of payment onRs.1575/-, the principal amount of gratuity for the period from 14.06.1967 to 08.12.1974, as ordered by the Controlling Authority. 3.6 It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner authority. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the proceedings before the Appellate Authority was not the review of the litigation which has attained finality before a decade and therefore the directions as ordered by the Appellate Authority in (1) & (2) in the operative part as referred above could not have been given by the Appellate Authority. It is further contended that interest could not have been awarded for the period which is not attributable to the employer. It is further contended that no direction could have been given even by the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity, at this belated stage. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has, in support of his contention, relied on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. N.L. Abhyaankar, reported in 1996 (1) CLR 370. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Pandya learned Advocate for the contesting respondent has contended that the payment of interest on gratuity amount is statutory liability of the employer and delay should not come in the way of the workman. It is also contended that the Controlling Authority's order was not challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and therefore, it is not open to them, at this stage, to contend that the respondent was not entitled to the gratuity which is ordered by the Controlling Authority. It is also contended that the Controlling Authority's order was not challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and therefore, it is not open to them, at this stage, to contend that the respondent was not entitled to the gratuity which is ordered by the Controlling Authority. Mr.Pandya has further contended that the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. N.L. Abhyaankar (supra) will not have any applicability in the facts of this case. It is contended that no interference be made in the impugned order by this Court. 6. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that so far as the arrears of gratuity for the period from 1981 to 2002 as ordered by the Appellate Authority is concerned, effectively, it is treated to be a review filed by the workman after about 10 years, with the mask of fresh application under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority had already rejected that claim and therefore, in the appeal filed by the respondent the Appellate Authority awarded arrears of gratuity for the period from 1981 to 2002, which could not have been done. Be it noted that the payment of gratuity for the said period had already attained finality before a decade. Therefore, direction by the Appellate Authority in (1) was beyond the scope of even original application and therefore, that could not have been gone into by the Appellate Authority. That part needs to be quashed and set aside. So far (2) is concerned, the same is towards interest on the principal amount which was the subject matter of litigation before a decade and (1) above. Under these circumstances even (2) also needs to be quashed and set aside. So far direction (3) is concerned, the contention of the petitioner authority that the respondent is not entitled to any interest, and reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. N.L. Abhyaankar (supra) needs to be rejected. The said decision in my view will not take the case of petitioner authority any further since it cannot have any applicability in this case or such cases. The said decision in my view will not take the case of petitioner authority any further since it cannot have any applicability in this case or such cases. The said decision is concerning a retired High Court Judge who is not paid gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The case in hand is one, where the question of payment of interest on the gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act is an issue. Therefore, the reliance on the above referred decision in my view, is of no help to the petitioner. In the peculiar facts of this case, however this Court finds that, when the respondent had moved the authorities after inordinate delay and further that earlier the gratuity amount was already calculated and paid to the respondent, for direction (3) ends of justice would meet, if the respondent is held entitled to interest form the date of his application before the Controlling Authority till the date of its actual payment. This petition needs to be allowed to this limited extent. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is partly allowed. The direction No.1 in the operative part of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 04.04.2013 in appeal No. 03 of 2013 is quashed and set aside. Direction No.2, in the said order is also quashed and set aside. Direction No.3, in the said order is modified to the extent that the respondent shall be entitled to interest on the principal amount ofRs.1575/- from the date of application before the Controlling Authority till the date of actual payment. 8. Rule is made absolute to the above extent only. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.