JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- "6(B) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the orders dated 7/19-12-2006 (Annexure-A) and 18-72006 (Annexure-B) passed by the Appellate Authority, Regional Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad and the Controlling Authority, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara, respectively, with respect to the interest part and there upon direct the respondent to pay the amount of difference of 15% compound interest on the amount of gratuity Rs. 85892/- from 7-6-2001 till the date of payment is made and Rs. 41840 already paid. Or alternatively (B) remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority for considering it a fresh in the light of the contentions raised in form of facts and grounds in the said Appeal No. -AH/RLC/48(10)/2006 AND WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY ITS OWN ORDER DATED 7/19-12-2006" 2. So far as the facts involved in the case are concerned, it appears that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent company in September 1985. Subsequently, he resigned from the service in June 2001. According to the petitioner, he was entitled for gratuity, however, the respondent failed to pay gratuity and that therefore, he initiated proceedings before the controlling authority appointed under Payment of Gratuity Act. The controlling authority passed an order allowing the claim application of the petitioner and directed to pay Rs. 85,892/- towards gratuity. Even after the order passed by the controlling authority and the appellate authority, the amount was not paid and that therefore, the applicant applied for recovery certificate. Around that time, the respondent challenged the orders passed by the controlling authority and the appellate authority in Special Civil Application No. 13792 of 2003. While disposing the said petition, this Court remanded the case to the controlling authority in view of the fact that the respondent had claimed that it had filed review application before the controlling authority. The Court, while disposing aforesaid petition, directed the controlling authority to decide the review application. Subsequently, the controlling authority decided the review application in July 2006 and while disposing the review application, the controlling authority/appellate authority reduced the rate of interest which was originally allowed at 15% to 10%. The appellate authority confirmed the said order. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 18.7.2006 and 19.12.2006 respectively, the concerned claimant has taken out present petition. 3. Subsequently, the controlling authority decided the review application in July 2006 and while disposing the review application, the controlling authority/appellate authority reduced the rate of interest which was originally allowed at 15% to 10%. The appellate authority confirmed the said order. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 18.7.2006 and 19.12.2006 respectively, the concerned claimant has taken out present petition. 3. The controversy which is raised by the petitioner is that when the employer has committed delay in payment of gratuity even after the order passed by the controlling authority determining the claim and even after the controlling authority issued recovery certificate on account of employer's failure in paying gratuity after the authority's order, the employer is obliged to pay interest at the enhanced rate as prescribed and contemplated under Section 8 of the Act or not. 4. For the said purpose, it is relevant and necessary to take into account sub-section 3(A) of Section 7, which reads thus:- "(3A) If the amount of gratuity payable under subsection (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 becomes 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 the 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." 4.1 It is also relevant and necessary to take into account Section 8 of the Act. The said Section 8 reads thus:- "8. The said Section 8 reads thus:- "8. Recovery of gratuity - If the amount of gratuity payable under this Act is not paid by the employer, within the prescribed time, to the person entitled thereto, the controlling authority shall, on an application made to it in this behalf by the aggrieved person, issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall recover the same, together with compound interest thereon a [at such rate as the Central Government may, by notification, specify] from the date of expiry of the prescribed time, as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled thereto: b [Provided that the controlling authority shall, before issuing a certificate under this section, give the employer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the issue of such certificate: Provided further that the amount of interest payable under this section shall, in no case exceed the amount of gratuity payable under this Act.]" 4.2 From the said provision, it becomes clear that if gratuity is not paid by the employer within 30 days from the date on which it becomes applicable in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Act, then, the claimant/employee can institute proceedings before the controlling authority and the controlling authority, upon being satisfied, would pass order directing the employer to pay gratuity with simple interest at the rate prescribed by the appropriate government. Section 7(3A) takes care of the situation where gratuity is not paid within time limit prescribed by sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. In those cases where such delay is established, the controlling authority will direct the employer to pay gratuity with interest (for the period of delay) in accordance with subsection (3A) of Section 7 of the Act. Whereas Section 8 of the Act takes care of the situation where the employer does not pay gratuity, even after the order passed by the controlling authority under Section 7. The said Section 8 provides that if the gratuity is not paid under the Act within the prescribed time, then, the controlling authority would issue recovery certificate for recovery of the amount with compound interest at such rate as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 5. The said Section 8 provides that if the gratuity is not paid under the Act within the prescribed time, then, the controlling authority would issue recovery certificate for recovery of the amount with compound interest at such rate as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 5. In present case, the petitioner claims that he had tendered resignation on 7th June 2001 and that therefore, gratuity amount ought to have been paid on or before 6.7.2001, however, the employer did not pay the gratuity and he was compelled to institute the proceedings. 5.1 It is also claimed by the petitioner that earlier the controlling authority had issued recovery certificate in September 2003 and that time, the controlling authority had taken into account Section 8 and, accordingly, awarded interest at 15% over the principal amount. However, when the controlling authority and the appellate authority considered and decided the review applications, the said authorities reduced the rate of interest to 10%. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved. 6. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that appellate authority has committed error in interfering with the order passed by the controlling authority awarding interest in accordance with the provision contained under Section 8 of the Act. 6.1 The relevant facts, as narrated by the petitioner (any affidavit in reply controverting the details mentioned by the petitioner is not filed by the respondent) give out that the petitioner tendered his resignation from service on 7.6.2001. Therefore, the cause to pay gratuity arose on and from 7.6.2001. 6.2 It appears that on or around 24.1.2002, i.e. about 6 months after the petitioner tendered his resignation, the respondent company offered Rs. 80,524/- to the petitioner towards gratuity. 6.3 It also appears that the petitioner informed the respondent that the calculation of gratuity is not proper and the amount offered to him towards gratuity is not in accordance with the formula under the Act and that therefore, the company should recalculate the amount and pay gratuity in accordance with the Act. According to the petitioner the amount payable towards gratuity would be Rs. 85,892/-. 6.4 It further appears that the respondent company thereafter, did not take any action either to forward the same amount to the petitioner or to pay revised amount to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the amount payable towards gratuity would be Rs. 85,892/-. 6.4 It further appears that the respondent company thereafter, did not take any action either to forward the same amount to the petitioner or to pay revised amount to the petitioner. 6.5 The petitioner has claimed that somewhere in May 2002, he had, voluntarily, forward advance receipt for Rs. 85,892/- on the premise that according to him, the amount payable towards gratuity would be Rs. 85,892/-. 6.6 Even thereafter, the respondent company did not take any action to pay any amount towards gratuity to the petitioner. 6.7 In this background, somewhere on or around 24.10.2002, the petitioner filed gratuity claim application and claimed Rs. 85,892/- with interest. 6.8 It appears that somewhere around 24.12.2002, the respondent company filed written submissions before the controlling authority. Thereafter, the controlling authority passed the order dated 20.1.2003/4.2.2003 directing the respondent company to pay Rs. 85,892/- towards gratuity with interest at the rate of 10%. 6.9 In the said order, it was clarified that if the amount is not paid with 10% interest, then, the recovery shall be effected by applying 15% interest. 6.10 It appears that on the basis of the said order, the controlling authority subsequently issued directions in prescribed Form R. 6.11 According to the petitioner, the said Form R did not contain any reference about interest. Therefore, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority and challenged the said Form R and prayed for direction that the said Form R should be appropriately modified or fresh Form R should be issued. 6.12 Subsequently, vide order dated 25.2.2003, the appellate authority passed order clarifying that the employer must pay gratuity i.e. Rs. 85,892/- with interest at the rate of 10% from 7.6.2001 i.e. the date when the petitioner tendered resignation. 6.13 After the said order dated 25.2.2003, on or around 6.3.2003 the respondent company filed review application before the controlling authority. On the other hand, around 27.3.2003, the controlling authority issued notice in prescribed Form S to the respondent - employer calling upon the company to pay Rs. 85,892/- with interest at the rate of 10% from 7.6.2001. 6.14 It appears that even after the said Form S, the respondent company did not pay gratuity to the petitioner. On the other hand, around 27.3.2003, the controlling authority issued notice in prescribed Form S to the respondent - employer calling upon the company to pay Rs. 85,892/- with interest at the rate of 10% from 7.6.2001. 6.14 It appears that even after the said Form S, the respondent company did not pay gratuity to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed application in Form D requesting the authority to issue recovery certificate under Section 8 read with Rule 19. 7. From the record, it further appears that on or around 24.6.2003, the controlling authority issued order directing the respondent company to pay Rs. 85,892/- with interest at 15%. Since even after the said order dated 24.6.2003, the respondent company did not pay gratuity to the petitioner, the controlling authority issued recovery certificate dated 15.9.2003 directing the Collector and District Magistrate to take steps to recover Rs. 85,892/- with interest at 10% from 20.1.2003. 7.1 It has also come out from the record that around the time when the recovery certificate was issued, the respondent company filed writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 13792 of 2003. The Court disposed of the said Special Civil Application No. 13792 of 2003 vide order dated 23.2.2006. In the said order dated 23.2.2006, the Court observed, inter alia, that:- "4.0 Heard, learned Counsels for the parties and after perusal of the documents on record I am of the opinion that since the Review Application is pending before the Reviewing Authority, it will not be appropriate to decide this matter on merits. 4.1 The petitioner shall deposit the amount directed by the Authority within two weeks from today. On depositing the said amount by the petitioner, the Reviewing Authority namely the Controlling Authority shall decide the Review Application filed by the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 24.06.2003 within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the writ of this Court. It may be noted that in the event of rejection of the said Review Application, the respondent shall be paid the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner." 7.2 It appears that while passing the order, the Court had directed present respondent company to deposit the amount in question within two weeks. At the time of hearing of this petition, Mr. At the time of hearing of this petition, Mr. Shah, the petitioner, who appears as party in person, informed this Court that the respondent company has not deposited the amount in question. The said submission by the petitioner is not controverted by the learned advocate for the respondent. After the said order dated 23.2.2006, the controlling authority issued notice to the parties for hearing and final disposal. 7.3 It appears that vide order dated 18.7.2006, the controlling authority rejected the review application and subsequently, i.e. on or around 6.11.2006, the respondent company informed the petitioner that in compliance of the order of the High Court it has deposited the amount. 8. The petitioner has summarized the developments after the order dated 23.2.2006 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13792 of 2003 in below-quoted statement:- 26-04-06 Notice issued by Controlling Authority for final disposal of original application of the petitioner No. BRC/ALC/48(257)/02 22-05-06 Same – as on 26-04-06 no hearing took place 30-05-06 Calculation of amount of gratuity and interest given to the controlling Authority – other side refused to accept the same 18-07-06 Review Application of the Respondent was rejected by controlling Authority and also earlier order of controlling Authority hold good 24-07-06 Petitioner preferred caveat application No. 2840/06 against probable SCA by respondent against order dated 18-07-06 11-08-06 MCA 2040/06 preferred by petitioner for modification of the order dated 23-02-06 for deposition of 15% interest mentioning rejected with suitable observations 08-09-06 Petitioner preferred Appeal before Appellate Authority being Appeal No. AH/RLC/48(10)/2006 Against order dated 18-07-06 to the extent of holiday good earlier order whereby only 10 percent interest was directed instead of 15 percent as contained in Recovery Certificate 19-10-06 Appellate Authority communicated to petitioner for discussion about Hon’ble high court’s order 30-10-06 Reply was given by the petitioner in writing 30-10-06 Above reply of the petitioner was in warded by the Appellate Authority 06-11-06 Respondent communicated to petitioner above deposition of amount of gratuity as per order of Hon’ble High Court – No date of disposition mentioned. 07-12-06/ 19-12-06 Appellate Authority passed order in Appeal No. AH/RLC/48(10)/2006 – only 10 percent interest granted 28-12-06 Demanded draft for Rs. 07-12-06/ 19-12-06 Appellate Authority passed order in Appeal No. AH/RLC/48(10)/2006 – only 10 percent interest granted 28-12-06 Demanded draft for Rs. 84892/- dated 12-12-06 – collected personally by the petitioner from the office of the Appellate Authority 11-01-07 Demanded draft dated 04-01-07 Rs.41840/- was received towards interest (10 percent only and not 15 percent) 01-12-87 Notification for 15 percent interest 21-07-07 SCA 8591/07 was preferred by the petitioner against order dated 07-12-06/19-12-06 of Appellate Authority and 18-07-06 of Controlling Authority Prescribing only 10 percent of Interest instead of 15 percent as Reflected in Recovery Certificate 30-03-07 “Rule” was issued by this order 8.1 From the submissions at the time of hearing, it appears that somewhere in 2006, the company deposited the principal amount towards gratuity i.e. Rs. 85,892/- and thereafter, the petitioner has withdrawn the said amount. It is not in dispute that principal amount of gratuity is paid to and received by the petitioner. 8.2 It has further emerged from the record that the company has submitted demand draft dated 4.1.2007 for Rs. 41,840/- in compliance of the direction of the Appellate Authority. According to the petitioner, the period in respect of which the said amount of interest is paid to the petitioner and the rate at which the interest component is calculated by the company, is not clarified. The petitioner has received the said amount (i.e. Rs. 41,840/-). 8.3 In this background, the petitioner has in present petition, inter alia, prayed for above quoted relief. 9. From the foregoing discussion, it has emerged that as back as in June 2003, the controlling authority had issued notice and directed the respondent company to pay interest at 15%. 9.1 It has also emerged that after the controlling authority issued notice dated 24.6.2003, more particularly after the Court passed the order dated 23.2.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 13792 of 2003, the petitioner approached the appellate authority with an application/appeal and the appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2006. 9.1 It has also emerged that after the controlling authority issued notice dated 24.6.2003, more particularly after the Court passed the order dated 23.2.2006 in Special Civil Application No. 13792 of 2003, the petitioner approached the appellate authority with an application/appeal and the appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2006. 9.2 In this background, the petitioner's grievance is that the appellate authority failed to consider the provision under Section 8 of the Act and the appellate authority also failed to appreciate the conduct of the respondent company of not paying interest towards gratuity even after the order passed by the controlling authority and that the company caused further delay in depositing the amount directed by the High Court vide order dated 23.2.2006. 9.3 From the above chronology, it has also emerged that during the last two rounds of appeals before the appellate authority, at any stage, the appellate authority does not appear to have passed any order directing the respondent company to pay interest at 15% and the appellate authority also does not appear to have taken into account the provision under Section 8 of the Act as well as the chronology of dates and events and the alleged delay caused by the company in payment of the gratuity to the petitioner. 9.4 The petitioner has received Rs. 85,892/- towards gratuity and Rs. 41,842/- towards interest. According to the petitioner's claim, the appellate authority's order is erroneous and defective since the authority failed to consider his case in light of Section 8 and his claim for compound interest at the rate of 15%. It appears that the proceedings deserves to be remanded to the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's claim for interest at 15% for entire period of alleged delay caused by the respondent company in payment of gratuity. This is necessary also for the reason that the appellate authority has not recorded any conclusion/findings in respect of petitioner's claim and there is no discussion as regards merits of petitioner's claim. It will be necessary for the appellate authority to also call for the explanation from the respondent company as regards the calculation of interest amount i.e. Rs. This is necessary also for the reason that the appellate authority has not recorded any conclusion/findings in respect of petitioner's claim and there is no discussion as regards merits of petitioner's claim. It will be necessary for the appellate authority to also call for the explanation from the respondent company as regards the calculation of interest amount i.e. Rs. 41,840/- and to place on record, the period which is taken into account for calculating the said amount towards interest and the rate at which the company has calculated the interest i.e. to explain the period taken into account by the company and the rate of interest taken into account by the company. The appellate authority should also decide the legality, propriety and maintainability of the petitioner's claim for payment of interest at 15% i.e. the appellate authority should decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled for claim interest at the rate of 15% instead of 10% and if yes, then, the date from which the petitioner should receive interest at 15%. So as to consider the said aspects, the matter should be considered by the appellate authority who passed the order impugned in present petition i.e. 19.12.2006. Consequently, following order is passed:- 9.5 The order dated 19.12.2006 is set aside and the appeal case No. AH/RLC/48(10)/2006 is remanded to the appellate authority to consider above mentioned issues and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 8 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid clarification, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.