JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such they arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in respective Special Civil Applications, all these Letters Patent Appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in respective Special Civil Application Nos. 2036 of 2014 to 2042 of 2014 with Special Civil Application No. 2049 of 2014, the common appellant herein-original petitioner - Management has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals. That the concerned teachers-employees of C.U. Shah College of Engineering and Technology, Surendranagar & Smt. S.R. Doshi and Smt. L.N. Doshi, PTC, College, Vadhwan, Surendrangar managed by the Vardhman Bharti Trust approached the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming amount of gratuity with interest thereon. That the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Wages Act directed the appellant/appellants herein-original petitioner to pay the gratuity to the respective concerned employees the amount of gratuity due and payable to them under the Payment of Gratuity Act with interest at the rate of 10% interest thereon. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective order/orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, respective appellants-original petitioners preferred aforesaid Special Civil Applications. 2. It was mainly contended on behalf of the original petitioners -managements that as such the Payment of Gratuity Act would not be applicable to the respective management/institutions-educational institutions. Therefore, it was submitted that when the Payment of Gratuity Act would not be applicable to the educational institutions and more particularly, respective management/institutions they were not liable to pay gratuity to the concerned employee. It was further submitted that as such the management have already approached the Appropriate Authority for exemption from applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act and the same is pending and therefore, if such an application is decided, they cannot be saddled to the liability to pay the gratuity to the concerned employee. The aforesaid Special Civil Applications were opposed by concerned employee by submitting that as per the notification issued, all the educational institutions are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, the respective petitioners/managements/institutions are liable to pay gratuity to the concerned employee. The aforesaid Special Civil Applications were opposed by concerned employee by submitting that as per the notification issued, all the educational institutions are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, the respective petitioners/managements/institutions are liable to pay gratuity to the concerned employee. That by impugned well reasoned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications preferred by the respective appellants herein by observing that the Payment of Gratuity Act would be applicable to the respective educational institutions/original petitioners and consequently has confirmed the respective orders passed by the Controlling Authority. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the aforesaid Special Civil Applications and confirming the respective orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the respective appellants herein-original petitioners have preferred present Letters Patent Appeals. 3. Shri K.M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants- original petitioners has initially tried to make submission that the Payment of Gratuity Act would not be applicable to the appellants-original petitioners - educational institutions. However, in light of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, more particularly, notification issued by the Appropriate Authority, by which, the educational institutions are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act and considering the fact that AICTE granted the recognition to the respective educational institutions subject to following Rules and Regulations of the Government Institutions, Shri Patel, learned Senior Advocate for the respective appellants has fairly conceded that as such it would not be open to contend that the respective appellants- original petitioners are not covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act. However, has submitted that since the exemption application submitted by the respective appellants-original petitioners is/are pending, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Controlling Authority may be quashed and set aside. Shri Patel, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants- original petitioners has submitted that in case of two employees even the amount of gratuity directed to be paid, the concerned appellants- original petitioners has paid much more than the concerned employees entitled to. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Letters Patent Appeals. 4. Heard Shri K.M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate for the respective appellants-original petitioners at length. We have perused the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Letters Patent Appeals. 4. Heard Shri K.M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate for the respective appellants-original petitioners at length. We have perused the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. At the outset, it is required to be noted that what was challenged before the learned Single Judge was the respective orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act directing the managements who are educational institutions to pay gratuity to the respective employees with 10% interest thereon. 5. It was the case on behalf of the management/educational institutions that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act shall not be applicable to the concerned respective educational institutions. However, in view of the notification issued by the Appropriate Authority, by which, all educational institutions are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act and considering the fact that even AICTE granted the recognition to the respective various institutions subject to fulfilling of conditions which may be applicable to the Government Institutions and the Government Rules, and even as observed herein above, the learned Counsel for the respective various institutions/managements has fairly conceded that the aforesaid ground shall not be available to the respective appellants- original petitioners. 6. Even otherwise, according to the respective educational institutions they themselves have applied for exemption from the applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act. Meaning thereby, the Payment of Gratuity Act would be applicable to them. Exemption can be claimed only when that would be applicable to them. Therefore, also contention on behalf of the appellants that Payment of Gratuity Act shall not be applicable to them, cannot be accepted. 7. Now, so far as submission made by Shri Patel, learned Counsel for the respective appellants that in case of two or three employees, more amount of gratuity is paid than, they are entitled to i.e. they have claimed/charged the gratuity considering the salary as per 6th Pay Commission. However, it is required to be noted that such was the never contention on behalf of the appellants-original petitioners before the learned Single Judge. Even in the present appeals, no such contention has been raised. The aforesaid shall be factual aspect which cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the appeals that too without raising any ground even in the appeal memo. Even in the present appeals, no such contention has been raised. The aforesaid shall be factual aspect which cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the appeals that too without raising any ground even in the appeal memo. If such contention would have been raised before the learned Single Judge the same could have been considered by the learned Single Judge after giving an opportunity to the other side. Under the circumstances,, such oral contention/oral submission cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the appeal. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the appeals fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of respective Letters Patent Appeals, respective Civil Applications stand also dismissed.