JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. When the petition is called out, learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent are not present. 2. In view of the fact that advance intimation about hearing of this petition was given vide notice dated 12.7.2016 and since despite the said advance intimation, learned advocates are not present, the Court deems it proper to decide this petition after considering the material available on record of this petition. 3. In present petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.9.2005 passed by controlling authority and the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority. 4. From the material on record, it has emerged that present petitioner claimed that he was engaged by the respondent No. 1 in 1991 and that he worked with the respondent No. 1 continuously from 1991 to 1998. The petitioner also claimed that the respondent No. 1 was engaged as security guard and he was deployed at V.S. Hospital by the respondent No. 1. He also claimed that from 1.5.1996 he was deployed at Shri V.S. Hospital by the respondent No. 1 and before that, he was deployed as security guard at different establishments where the security contract was awarded to the respondent No. 1. He also claimed that during the tenure of his service, he was made to sign on vouchers and the employer did not issue wage slip or any other document. After the petitioner was relieved in October 1998, he demanded gratuity, however, the respondent No. 1 did not pay gratuity and that therefore, he approached the controlling authority constituted under the Act and claimed payment of gratuity for the period from 1.1.1991 to 31.10.1998. 4.1 The said gratuity application was registered as application No. 14 of 2003. The controlling authority decided the said application vide order dated 31.5.2004 and directed the opponent i.e. present respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 11,520/- as gratuity to the claimant i.e. present petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 31.5.2004 present respondent No. 1 filed appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal was registered as Gratuity Appeal No. 47 of 2004. The appellate authority heard the parties and found that the controlling authority had passed the order dated 31.5.2004 in absence of any evidence which would establish that the petitioner had continuously worked for 5 years or more. The appeal was registered as Gratuity Appeal No. 47 of 2004. The appellate authority heard the parties and found that the controlling authority had passed the order dated 31.5.2004 in absence of any evidence which would establish that the petitioner had continuously worked for 5 years or more. Therefore, with a view to granting opportunity to the claimant to place relevant evidence on record the appellate authority remanded the case to the controlling authority. 4.2 After the matter was remanded the controlling authority again heard the parties and vide order dated 21.9.2005 controlling authority rejected the claimant's application. This time the claimant felt aggrieved by the controlling authority's order and he filed appeal before the appellate authority which was registered as Gratuity Appeal No. 1 of 2006. The appellate authority confirmed the controlling authority's order dated 21.9.2005, vide its order dated 4.7.2006 passed in Appeal No. 1 of 2006. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of the appellate authority, hence present petition. 5. At this stage Mr. Mishra, learned advocate has appeared. 5.1 Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the controlling authority had allowed the application filed by present claimant after reaching to the conclusion that the claimant - petitioner is entitled for gratuity however when the appellate authority remanded the case and the controlling authority again heard the matter, then without any reason or justification same controlling authority rejected the claimant's application vide order dated 21.9.2005 and thereafter appellate authority in perfunctory manner and without recording the reasons rejected the appeal. According to learned advocate for the petitioner controlling authority failed to record any reason as to why it had taken different view from the view taken by it earlier while allowing the application vide order dated 31.5.2004. 5.2 The respondent No. 1 is not present. However, affidavit dated 25.3.2008 is filed by one Mr. M.N. Bhatt, Manager of the respondent No. 1. In the affidavit dated 25.3.2008 the deponent of respondent No. 1 has averred and stated that:- "3. In reply to para 1 of the petition, I say and submit that, the facts mentioned by the petitioner are not correct as whole. However, affidavit dated 25.3.2008 is filed by one Mr. M.N. Bhatt, Manager of the respondent No. 1. In the affidavit dated 25.3.2008 the deponent of respondent No. 1 has averred and stated that:- "3. In reply to para 1 of the petition, I say and submit that, the facts mentioned by the petitioner are not correct as whole. It is not true that, the Controlling Authority has rejected the application on 21.9.2005 after remand back in perfunctory manner and thereafter appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal of the petitioner as petitioner has fails to establish that he has worked from 1991 to 1998 with the respondent No. 1 as it was alleged in the Gratuity Application. 4. In reply to para 2 of the petition, I say and submit that, it is true that the petitioner has given an application for production of documents but petitioner has not stated that what order was passed by the Controlling Authority on the said application. 5. In reply to para 3 and 4 of the petition, I say and submit that, the documents on which the petitioner is relying are not just and proper evidence to show that the petitioner had worked with the respondent No. 1 or with the respondent No. 2 from 1991 to 1998. It is not true that the Controlling Authority has rejected the application without application of mind and it was confirmed by the appellate authority. 6. In reply to para 5 and 6 of the petition, I say and submit that, as such there is no error committed by the authorities below by rejecting the case of the petitioner as it was not proved by the petitioner by producing substantial documents to show that the petitioner has worked from 1991 to 1998 and practically petitioner has worked for merely 2 years i.e. from May 1996 to June 1998 and therefore petitioner is not entitled for gratuity as petitioner has not completed five years of service." 6. I have considered the material on record and I have also considered the submission by Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the respondent authority and I have also considered orders passed by the controlling authority and appellate authority. I have considered the material on record and I have also considered the submission by Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the respondent authority and I have also considered orders passed by the controlling authority and appellate authority. 6.1 The petitioner herein instituted proceedings under Gratuity Act against present respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was employed by the respondent No. 1 and did not pay gratuity. 6.2 At one stage controlling authority had passed order dated 31.5.2004 accepting petitioner's allegation that he had worked for 8 years with the respondent No. 1 and his daily salary was Rs. 96/- per day and on that basis controlling authority passed order dated 31.5.2004 allowing the application and directing the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 11,520/- to the petitioner towards gratuity. 6.3 The appellate authority examined the record and found that the claimant had not placed any evidence on record to support his allegation. 6.4 Therefore, the appellate authority remanded the case to controlling authority with a view that the claimant may get opportunity to place relevant evidence on record. 6.5 After remand, the controlling authority reheard the parties and having taken note of the fact that the petitioner had failed to place any material on record and that he had worked with the respondent No. 1 for more than 5 years i.e. from 1991 to 1995 and/or his last drawn salary was Rs. 96/- per day, the controlling authority rejected the application vide order dated 21.9.2005 and the appellate authority confirmed the said order vide order dated 4.7.2006. 6.6 When the aforesaid facts and material on record are examined it comes out that the petitioner has failed to place relevant documents which should establish that he was employed by the respondent No. 1 for more than 5 years and his last drawn salary was Rs. 96/- per day. 6.7 One document viz. Certificate dated 7.11.1996 allegedly issued by one Mr. CD. Shah is placed on record. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate relied on the said document. The said Mr. Shah appears to have informed the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner herein had returned his bag and thereby he had executed sincerity towards his work. 6.8 Another similar type of certificate is placed on record. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate also relied on said documents. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate relied on the said document. The said Mr. Shah appears to have informed the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner herein had returned his bag and thereby he had executed sincerity towards his work. 6.8 Another similar type of certificate is placed on record. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate also relied on said documents. The said other certificate dated 9.10.1997 is issued by Mr. B.V. Kachchhi. He also seems to have said that the petitioner had returned his bag which contained cheques and other documents. 6.9 It is not in dispute that the identity of the said persons are not established. The said persons were not examined before the authority to establish that such certificates were actually issued by them. 6.10 The 3rd certificate, which is also relied on by Mr. Mishra, learned advocate on similar ground and with similar facts is also placed on record. The said 3rd certificate (dated 16.12.1996) bears signature of one Mr. Bipin D. Shah. The said person was also not examined and identity of the said Mr. Shah was also not established before the controlling authority. 6.11 Even the said three incidents are not proved. The contents of said three certificates are also not proved. The identity of said three persons are also not proved. 6.12 Thus, the said 3 documents and their contents do not have any probative and evidentiary value. 7. Besides this, the petitioner has placed one document on record which seems to be inspection note put up by Minimum Wages Inspector on 27.3.1998. The said document, according to the petitioner, reflects his name as employee of the respondent No. 1. 7.1 On this count it is relevant to note that so far as the petitioner's service with the respondent is concerned, even according to the respondent there is probably, no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had worked with the respondent but he worked with the respondent No. 1 for only two years i.e. from May 1996 to June 1998 and that therefore he would not be entitled for gratuity. 7.2 Even the said inspection note made by Minimum Wage Inspector does not support the case of the petitioner and does not carry the petitioner's case further because the said note was made by Minimum Wage Inspector on 27.3.1998 i.e. during undisputed period of petitioner's service with the respondent No. 1 and it does not prove the petitioner's claim that he worked with the respondent from 1991. 7.3 As last support learned advocate for the petitioner sought to rely on one document dated 16.7.1991 which, allegedly, was issued by Manager of the respondent No. 1 whereby he seems to have informed one Mr. Jitubhai that the concerned person i.e. Mr. Harshadbhai (present petitioner) and Mr. Maheshbhai will work at his place for 2 days on 17/7 and 18/7. 7.4 The said document also has no probative value inasmuch as the Manager was not examined and the said document even otherwise did not give out or establish any relevant fact, more particularly the fact that the petitioner had worked with the respondent for 5 years and thereby acquired eligibility. Even the signature is not identified as that of the person who worked as Manager in 1991 with the respondent No. 1. 8. In this view of the matter, even if the allegations by the petitioner are taken into account and the fact that at one point of time the controlling authority had allowed the application is also considered then also the petitioner's request for remand of present case to the controlling authority will not serve any purpose because the petitioner has failed to place any cogent material on record of present petition and today also there is no material on record which can satisfy the authority or the Court that the petitioner had completed minimum five years of service with the respondent No. 1 i.e. he fulfilled eligibility criterion prescribed by the Act. 8.1 Besides this, there is no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner's salary was Rs. 96/- per day as claimed by him and which was taken into account by the controlling authority in its first order. 8.1 Besides this, there is no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner's salary was Rs. 96/- per day as claimed by him and which was taken into account by the controlling authority in its first order. 8.2 It is pertinent to note that the appellate authority had remanded the case with a view to granting opportunity to the petitioner to place cogent evidence on record, the petitioner could have examined any co-worker to support his case or he could have placed any other documents or cogent evidence on record before controlling authority. 8.3 However even in the second opportunity the petitioner failed to place any cogent evidence on record and any evidence to establish that the petitioner had fulfilled eligibility criteria of minimum five years continuous service with the respondent No. 1, is not available on record of this petitioner also. 9. Under the circumstances, there is nothing on record in light of which the two concurrent orders viz. orders passed by the controlling authority and appellate authority can be faulted. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to establish any error in the said two orders. Any ground either to allow the claim or even to remand the case to the controlling authority is not made out. The petition therefore, fails and deserves to be rejected. Therefore the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. Orders accordingly.