Judgment : 1. A public Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the order dt. 6/7/2010 of the Controlling Authority determining Rs.5,09,144/-as the gratuity payable to the workman who had taken voluntary retirement on 31/8/2005, filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority along with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, whence the Appellate Authority by order dt. 26/3/2012 accepted the explanation and condoned the delay, however, confirmed the reasons, findings and conclusions of the Controlling Authority and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that: (a) the workman having entered service on 8/8/1977 and took voluntary retirement on 31/8/2005, served the petitioner-Corporation for 28 years and 23 days though would have attained the age of superannuation on 31/8/2009, despite which the authorities below reckoned 31 years as the total number of years of service including the left over period until the age of superannuation, which is incorrect in the light of the Circular No. 1335 dt. 12/8/2005 providing for reckoning leftover period of service of one year only, for the purpose of gratuity; (b) the authorities below reckoned Rs.16,424/-as the last drawn wage, though the Basic Dearness Allowance (BDA) (Basic + DA) as on 31/8/2005 of the workman was Rs.9,605/- and therefore the DA of Rs.6,819.55 could not have been added to the BDA; (c) petitioner-Corporation had given effect to the government order with effect from 1/4/1998 merging a portion of the DA with the basic pay of all workmen in the Road Transport Corporation and that is how BDA came into existence and it was thereafter wards that the Supreme Court in Krishnareddy's case directed that the government order should be implemented in respect of such of those employees who retired prior to 31/3/1998, which had no application to the facts of the petitioner's case; (d) the workman died on 29/1/2012 and LR application filed on 13/3/2012, though allowed, the cause title in the order of the Appellate Authority does not record LRs. being brought on record. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent-workman submits that: (a) the appeal filed on 20/12/2010 calling in question the order dt. being brought on record. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent-workman submits that: (a) the appeal filed on 20/12/2010 calling in question the order dt. 6/7/2010 of the Controlling Authority was barred by limitation; (b) that pursuant to the memorandum of settlement of the year 1989 and the judgments of this court, the Controlling Authority was fully justified in reckoning the last drawn wage of the workman as Rs.16,424/-and the period of continuous service as 31 years, to determine gratuity; (c) since the amount in deposit is released to the legal representatives of the workman, the writ petition is rendered infructuous; (d) though the legal representatives of the deceased workman were brought on record before the Appellate Authority, the mere inadvertence in not showing the names of the legal representatives in the cause title to the order in appeal, does not make the order invalid; (e) the very fact that this court, at the threshold, directed deposit of Rs.5,000/-towards litigation expenses, would show that there are no bonafides in filing the writ petition. 4. Government Advocate for the respondent -Authorities submits that the order impugned is well- merited, fully justified and does not call for interference. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the orders impugned, the only question that arise for decision making is, whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal confirming the order dt. 6/7/2010 of the Controlling Authority? 6. At the very threshold, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal filed by the Corporation is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation, cannot be countenanced. A perusal of the order -Annex.C of the Appellate Authority discloses that the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal was allowed and delay condoned. That finding is not called in question by the workman, represented by his legal representatives. Therefore that finding has become final. The contention that pursuant to the memorandum of settlement of the year 1989, coupled with the judgments of this court, the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority were justified in reckoning 31 years as the total period of service and Rs.16,424/- as the last drawn wage, in my considered opinion, was for the Appellate Authority to have considered while disposing of the appeal. Apparently, Annex.C-order does not disclose reasons and findings, except for jumping to conclusions, confirming the order of the Controlling Authority. On that score alone, this petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The memorandum of appeal -Annex.B discloses that the Corporation had opposed the order dt. 6/7/2010 of the Controlling Authority on the basis of relevant and material facts not considered by the Controlling Authority. It was therefore incumbent on the part of the Appellate Authority to have referred to each one of the grounds and record reasons and findings if the grounds were not tenable. Such is not the procedure followed by the Appellate Authority and therefore by a perverse procedure and a cryptic sentence, confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority to dismiss the appeal. 8. Suffice it to state that the order of the Appellate Authority suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. It is elsewhere said that the reasons are the harbinger of the mind of the maker of the order and therefore reasons must form the basis for any order, failing which would amount to denial of justice, which is precisely what has happened in this case. 9. In the result, without going into the merit of the case of the respondent for gratuity, this petition is allowed in part. The order -Annex.C of the Appellate Authority, in so far as it relates to failure to furnish reasons, findings and conclusions over the merits of the appeal, is quashed, while the condonation of the delay and allowing the application, does not call for interference. 10. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner-Corporation, after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations supra. Parties since represented by their counsel, are directed to be present before the Appellate Authority on 11/9/2013.