ORDER : Paresh Upadhyay, J. The employer has challenged the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the direction is given to make payment to the respondent of the differential amount of gratuity of Rs.3,12,754/-, with interest thereon. The order is passed by the Controlling Authority, Ahmedabad in Gratuity Case No. 2 of 2013 dated 21.09.2013. The said order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority (the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad) in Appeal No.3 of 2014 dated 28.08.2014. 2. Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for the employer has submitted that, the respondent had resigned from service and the same was accepted with effect from 31.03.2012 vide office order dated 23.03.2012, but thereafter it came to the notice of the employer that some financial irregularities were committed by him and therefore the gratuity was not paid to him. It is submitted that thereafter the concerned workman gave an undertaking that he be given part payment of gratuity, which was paid also to the tune of Rs.3,12,754/-. It is submitted that thereafter he approached the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the impugned orders are passed. It is submitted that the amount could not have been paid and it was only on his undertaking that even part payment was made and therefore, the Authority below could not have passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned orders be interfered with by this Court. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the respondent workman has submitted that, the workman had joined the service on 01.10.1975 and had resigned with effect from 31.03.2012, thus he was entitled to get gratuity for the total period of more than 36 years. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the said amount comes to Rs.7,69,978/- and the amount which is payable would be Rs.4,57,224/-. It is submitted that only part payment to the extent of Rs.3,12,754/- is made. It is submitted that neither any departmental inquiry was pending at the relevant time nor was initiated at any point of time nor there was any criminal proceedings qua the alleged irregularity which the employer is referring to and therefore no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed. 4. It is submitted that neither any departmental inquiry was pending at the relevant time nor was initiated at any point of time nor there was any criminal proceedings qua the alleged irregularity which the employer is referring to and therefore no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record and more particularly keeping in view the provisions of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Ac, 1972, this Court finds that, neither of the eventuality contemplated under the Act is existing in the present case and therefore the workman could not have been denied his due gratuity. So far the calculation is concerned, it is reflected in the order of the Authorities below and it is not in dispute. So far the alleged irregularity is concerned, no proceedings are initiated by the employer, leave aside any order of forfeiture of gratuity against the respondent. The employer can not be permitted to disown his liability solely on the basis of his say that the workman had committed some irregularity. This Court finds that the present one is not the case, which is covered by any of the eventuality contemplated under Section 4(6) of the Act and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned orders. It is reported that the amount as ordered by the Authority, is already deposited by the petitioner. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2014 is vacated. No order as to costs. Writ Petition Dismissed.