ORDER The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12.03.2013 passed in W.P.(L) No.1428 of 2012, whereby, the appellant was directed to make payment of interest over the gratuity amount for the period of delay on account of withholding payment of gratuity to the respondent. 2. The respondent was appointed on 01.07.1963 in Angarpathra Colliery of B.C.C.L. as Electric Helper and the Management recorded his date of birth as 20.03.1946 in Form B register and the respondent was superannuated on 15.09.1998. Even, prior to his retirement, the respondent has raised an industrial dispute on 14.07.1998 for correction of his date of birth as 20.03.1946 and the same was registered as Ref. No. 294 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the action of the Management i.e. date of superannuation on 15.09.1998 as recorded by the Management. 3. The case of the respondent was that the respondent made several representation before the appellant for payment/release of the retiral dues and also the payment of gratuity. Stating that no relief is granted to the respondent. The respondent filed a writ petition being, W.P.(S) No. 641 of 2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.12.2008 with the direction to the appellant to release the retiral dues within a period of two months. According to the appellant-Management, the appellant deposited the gratuity amount before the controlling authority on 15.12.2008 and the respondent was also informed about the said deposit on 5/7.01.2009. 4. The respondent filed an application before the controlling authority for payment of interest on the gratuity amount payable to him. By order dated 20.08.2010, the controlling authority has held that the gratuity amount has already been deposited by the Management and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Payment of Gratuity Act. Vide order dated 14.04.2011, the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the controlling authority and held that the respondent is entitled to the amount of gratuity only without any interest. 5. Challenging the order passed by the controlling authority confirmed by the appellate authority, the respondent filed W.P.(L) No.1428 of 2012. Vide order dated 14.04.2011, the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the controlling authority and held that the respondent is entitled to the amount of gratuity only without any interest. 5. Challenging the order passed by the controlling authority confirmed by the appellate authority, the respondent filed W.P.(L) No.1428 of 2012. The learned Single Judge held that under Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 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 whom the gratuity is payable. The learned Single Judge has further held that the appellant-Management themselves have made the respondent retire on 15.09.1998 and they had statutory obligation to deposit the gratuity amount before the controlling authority and on those findings, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay statutory interest over the gratuity amount for the period of delay it was withheld as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 6. Challenging the order passed in the writ petition, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the gratuity was deposited immediately after three days of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.641 of 2008 i.e. 13.12.2008 and the respondent was duly informed about the said deposit by 07.01.2009 and the appellant cannot be faulted for not making the payment of gratuity. The learned counsel has further submitted that when the respondent himself has raised the industrial dispute for correction of date of birth as 20.03.1946 and when the respondent himself was responsible for raising the dispute, the appellant-Management cannot be faulted for not paying the gratuity amount on the date of actual superannuation i.e. 15.09.1998. Drawing our attention to Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, the learned counsel has submitted that in terms of Rule 7(1), an employee who is eligible for payment of gratuity shall file an application in Form-I within thirty days from the date the gratuity is payable and the respondent has not made any such application and the respondent-employee himself having raised the dispute cannot turn around and claim the interest and this aspect has not been kept in view by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-employee. 8. 7. We have heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-employee. 8. Admittedly, as per the appellant-Management, the respondent was superannuated on 15.09.1998. As per Section 7(2) and Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as soon as the gratuity becomes payable, it is the statutory obligation of the employer/Management to pay the gratuity. Sections 7(2) & 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act read as under :- “7(2). As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. 7(3). The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity with in thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.” 8. By a reading of Section 7(2), it is clear that the gratuity becomes payable irrespective of whether an application referred to sub-Section (1) has been made or not. In the present case, even according to the appellant-Management, the respondent superannuated on 15.09.1998. It may be that the respondent has raised the industrial dispute in Ref. No. 294 of 2000 for correction of his date of birth as 20.03.1946. But, nothing prevented the appellant-Management to determine the gratuity payable taking the date of superannuation as 15.09.1998, but that was not done by the Management. 9. As per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the interest is to be paid on the gratuity amount which becomes payable to the date, it is actually paid. In terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it is statutory obligation for the appellant-Management 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. If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in subsection (3), the employer shall pay interest on the gratuity amount payable. Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act reads as under: “7(3A). If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in subsection (3), the employer shall pay interest on the gratuity amount payable. Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act reads as under: “7(3A). If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity become payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify: Provided 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.” 10. The Proviso to Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act makes it clear that no 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. According to the appellant-Management, the respondent was responsible for the delay in payment of gratuity. If that be so, appellant has not filed any application before the controlling authority for obtaining permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on the ground that the respondent has raised industrial dispute. 11. It is fairly well-settled that the payment of gratuity is not a charity, but it is the amount payable for the service rendered by the employer. Even, as per the stand of the appellant-Management, the date of superannuation was 15.09.1998 and it was the statutory obligation on the part of the appellant-Management to pay the amount of gratuity within the period of thirty days from the date on which it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable, since the gratuity amount was not paid in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the respondent to pay the interest and allowed the Writ Petition. 12. 12. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, and this Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appellant-Management to comply with the order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.