JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Chitaliya, learned AGP. None for the respondents. 2. From the record, it appears that from the stage of notice, the respondents have not appeared in these proceedings. 3. In this group of petitions, the petitioner company has challenged orders dated 7.12.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority appointed under provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner company has also challenged orders dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Controlling Authority in Remand (Gratuity) Case No. 4 of 2009. 3.1 By the order dated 29.10.2010 the Controlling Authority allowed the applications/requests to condone delay caused in filing gratuity claim applications. The petitioner company is aggrieved by the said decision dated 29.10.2010 condoning delay. 3.2 Whereas by the orders dated 7.12.2011, the Appellate Authority has directed the petitioner company to pay interest for the period of delay caused in payment of gratuity. According to the orders dated 7.12.2011, the Appellate Authority has directed the petitioner company to pay interest from 1.12.1993 (the date when the company was closed down) to 15.3.2005 when the settlement between the company and the workmen was arrived at and the company paid principal amount of gratuity to the workmen. 3.3 Against the said two orders and directions, the petitioner company has filed captioned petitions. 4. So far as the relevant facts are concerned, it has emerged from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner company and from the orders and the record that the petitioner company had discontinued its operations w.e.f. 1.12.1993 the ground of financial and other difficulties. 4.1 After the operations were discontinued, the company relieved the workmen from the service with the company. 4.2 Accordingly, the services of the workmen came to an end in December 1993, however, at the relevant time, the petitioner company did not pay gratuity to the workmen. 4.3 The petitioner company also did not pay closure compensation and other dues to the concerned workmen. 4.4 This situation, i.e. non-payment of closure compensation and gratuity and other dues continued for almost 12 years, i.e. until 15.3.2005 when the company entered into a settlement with the union representing the workmen. Under the settlement, the workmen, according to the company, agreed to accept certain lump sum amount towards their dues like closure compensation, gratuity, etc. 4.4 This situation, i.e. non-payment of closure compensation and gratuity and other dues continued for almost 12 years, i.e. until 15.3.2005 when the company entered into a settlement with the union representing the workmen. Under the settlement, the workmen, according to the company, agreed to accept certain lump sum amount towards their dues like closure compensation, gratuity, etc. 4.5 Accordingly, agreement was entered into and executed and the petitioner company about 12 years after the activities/operations of the company were discontinued and the workmen were relieved and under the said agreement, company paid gratuity to the concerned workmen. 4.6 About 400 workmen were affected, for almost 12 years, by the petitioner company's decision to discontinue the operations and by the company's default in payment of closure compensation, gratuity, etc. and during the said period the company did not pay any amount (towards unpaid wages, closure compensation, gratuity, etc.) to the concerned workmen and the concerned workmen were left without payment of any amount including gratuity. 4.7 Ultimately, with passage of 12 years, the workmen were exhausted and tired and they were compelled to or constrained to enter into the settlement with the company and the company could get the workmen accept lump sum amount towards closure compensation, earned leave, bonus, gratuity, etc. 4.8 On strength of the said settlement dated 15.3.2005, the petitioner company requested the learned Labour Court to dispose of Recovery-Application No. 36 of 2005. Accordingly, the learned Labour Court disposed of the recovery application. 4.9 However, 16 workmen, out of said about workmen affected by the decision of the company, did not accept the settlement and claimed that the settlement was against their interest. 4.10 The said 19 workmen got together and filed writ petition, i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 22496/2006 to 22513/2006, wherein the workmen challenged the settlement as well as the order dated 11.3.2005. 4.11 The said petitions came to be disposed of vide order dated 20.3.2007, wherein the Court observed that if the settlement is not acceptable to the concerned workmen, they can raise an industrial dispute. 4.12 Accordingly, on the ground of alternative remedy (to raise industrial dispute) this Court disposed of the said petitions. 4.11 The said petitions came to be disposed of vide order dated 20.3.2007, wherein the Court observed that if the settlement is not acceptable to the concerned workmen, they can raise an industrial dispute. 4.12 Accordingly, on the ground of alternative remedy (to raise industrial dispute) this Court disposed of the said petitions. 4.13 It appears that the workmen who were not satisfied with and had not accepted with the settlement, instituted gratuity claim applications somewhere in July/August 2007 and claimed that they should be paid unpaid gratuity with interest @ 18%. 4.14 The company filed reply in response to the gratuity claim applications. In its reply, the company mentioned the facts about the settlement. 4.15 After hearing the parties and after considering the claims and the reply of the company, the Controlling Authority passed orders dated 31.3.2008 and rejected the gratuity claim applications. 4.16 Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Controlling Authority, the concerned workmen filed appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority heard the parties and passed order dated 31.12.2008 and allowed the appeals with direction to the petitioner company to pay interest for delay caused in payment of gratuity. 4.17 Against the said order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner company filed petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 2382/2009 to 2397/2009. This Court, vide order dated 29.4.2009, partly allowed the petitions and remanded the case for reconsideration of rival contentions and fresh decision. 4.18 While considering the appeals on remand, the Appellate Authority, having regard to the fact that the Controlling Authority had not passed any order condoning delay, remanded the cases to the Controlling Authority for decision as regards the delay caused in filing the gratuity claim applications. 4.19 The Controlling Authority, upon remand of the cases, heard the parties and passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 and condoned the delay. 4.20 Thereafter, the appeals were heard by the Appellate Authority who passed the order granting claim of the workmen for interest. The Appellate Authority directed the company to pay interest for the period from 1.12.1993 (the date when the company discontinued the operations) to 13.3.2005 (i.e. when the amounts were paid to the workmen pursuant to the settlement dated 11.3.2005). Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner company has taken out present petitions. 5. The Appellate Authority directed the company to pay interest for the period from 1.12.1993 (the date when the company discontinued the operations) to 13.3.2005 (i.e. when the amounts were paid to the workmen pursuant to the settlement dated 11.3.2005). Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner company has taken out present petitions. 5. In view of the Appellate Authority's order which is impugned in present petitions, the petitioner company is obliged to pay interest for the aforesaid period to the said 19 claimants. 6. In this context, learned advocate for the petitioner company submitted that the Appellate Authority has not considered in proper prospective, the order dated 24.4.2009 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 2382/2009 to 2397/2009. He further submitted that the Appellate Authority also failed to appreciate the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. K. Balakrishna Nambiar, (1998) 2 SCC 706 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the persons who are in unauthorized occupation of quarters, would not be entitled for interest. He further submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that it was only with a view to continue to hold unauthorized occupation and possession of the quarters (company's property) that microscopic number of about 16 workmen (out of about 400 workmen who accepted the settlement) opposed the settlement and on one ground or another they are keeping the dispute alive so that they can continue to hold unauthorized possession of the quarters and that, therefore, the claim for interest is not justified. He also submitted that the Appellate Authority also failed to appreciate the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vaithyanathan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (2002) 3 LLJ 922 wherein Hon'ble Court has observed that there is nothing in the Act which prohibits the workmen to enter into an agreement to scale down the amount payable towards gratuity. He submitted that if the claim for principal amount can be reduced, there cannot be any objection to forgo the interest component at the time when overall settlement of disputes and claims is entered into. He submitted that if the claim for principal amount can be reduced, there cannot be any objection to forgo the interest component at the time when overall settlement of disputes and claims is entered into. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the Appellate Authority has not recorded any reasons or justification, except that the Act, by virtue of section 7(3B) of the Act, has made provision for interest, for not taking into account the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court and the observations by Calcutta High Court and the observation in the decision dated 24.2.2009 in Special Civil Application No. 2382/2009 to 2397/2009. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has not dealt with any contention and/or the decisions relied on by the petitioner company in the impugned order. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner company also submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to take into account the provision under section 8 which prescribes that the amount of interest cannot exceed principal amount of gratuity. 7. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner company submitted that the Appellate Authority should consider the contentions and record specific reasons for not accepting and rejecting the contentions raised by the company. He submitted that even the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it is observed and held that the persons in wrongful and unauthorized occupation of company's property are not entitled for interest, is not considered and that, therefore, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh order after recording his decision in respect of the contentions raised by the company and reasons in support of his decision after taking into account the decisions and observations relied on by the company. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner company also submitted that without prejudice to its contentions raised in the appeal as well as in these petitions, the petitioner company is ready to deposit the amount of interest if the case is remanded to the Appellate Authority to pass fresh speaking and reasoned order after hearing the petitioner company and after dealing with the contentions raised in the appeal and present petitions. 8.1 He also submitted that if the concerned claimants have already not withdrawn the principal amount payable as per the settlement which is deposited with the learned Labour Court they may withdraw the amount without prejudice to their claim/dispute, rights and without prejudice to pending cases and by keeping their rights and claims and dispute alive and open. 9. As mentioned earlier, the respondents/claimants have not entered appearance and therefore, any submissions or objections against petitioner's request and submissions are not placed before this Court. 10. When the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is examined in light of the petitioner's objection and more particularly in light of the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vaithyanathan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (2002) 3 LLJ 922 , in the case of Texmaco Limited vs. Appellate Authority, (2003) 2 LLJ 567 , in the case of Union of India vs. K. Balakrishna Nambiar, (1998) 2 SCC 706 and in the case of Union of India vs. Ujagar Lal, (1996) 11 SCC 116 , it emerges that there is substance in the objection raised by the petitioner inasmuch as the Appellate Authority has not dealt with any of the contentions raised by the appellant/petitioner and any findings with supporting reasons are not recorded in the impugned order and the authority has also not considered the decisions. 10.1 I it also emerges from the record that though the Appellate Authority has made reference of this Court's above mentioned order dated 29.4.2009, the Appellate Authority has, however, not taken into account any of the decisions referred to in the said order dated 29.4.2009 and has not recorded any reasons as to why the said decisions are not considered. 10.1 I it also emerges from the record that though the Appellate Authority has made reference of this Court's above mentioned order dated 29.4.2009, the Appellate Authority has, however, not taken into account any of the decisions referred to in the said order dated 29.4.2009 and has not recorded any reasons as to why the said decisions are not considered. To an extent, learned advocate for the petitioner company is also right and justified in submitting that except taking note of the provisions, i.e. section 7(3A) of the Act which provides for interest, the Appellate Authority has not recorded any reasons for rejecting the petitioner company's contentions, more particularly the contention that the union representing the workmen and the workmen themselves have accepted the settlement as full and final settlement of all claims and that, therefore, there is no justification in raising demand of interest after delay of two years as well as the contention that the claimants are in unjustified and unauthorized occupation of the quarters (company's property) and that the claim for interest by the workmen who are in wrongful occupation of the quarters, is not justified and not sustainable and such claim should not be entertained or approved. 10.2 Even if the Appellate Authority was not inclined to accept the contention raised by the company, then also it was necessary that the Appellate Authority should have recorded its conclusion for not accepting the contentions. However, in the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has not dealt with the contentions and has not recorded any reasons for not accepted the contention. 10.3 In this view of the matter, the impugned order is defective and that, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. 10.4 Further, having regard to the fact that the petitioner company has submitted that though first/main order of the Controlling Authority is in favour of the company, however the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount payable towards interest, of course without prejudice to its contention, if the case is remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and decision after taking into account the ground on which the claim for interest is opposed. In this view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner company's request deserves to be accepted, more particularly because the Appellate Authority has not discussed and has not dealt with the contentions of the petitioner company and has not recorded any decision with regard to the ground raised before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, following order is passed: (a) In light of above discussion and for foregoing reasons the cases deserve to be remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision. In view of above recorded reasons and for aforesaid purpose impugned order/s is -- are set aside and the cases are remanded to the Appellate Authority; (b) Within four weeks from today, the petitioner company will deposit the amount payable towards interest to the concerned 16 claimants, with the Controlling Authority; (c) After the said amount is deposited, the Appellate Authority will re-commence the proceedings related to Gratuity Appeal Nos. 32/2008 to 49/2008 after intimation to the petitioner company as well as the concerned claimants about next date of hearing; (d) The Appellate Authority will pass appropriate fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and after dealing with the contentions and grounds raised by the petitioner company against the claim for interest raised by 16 claimants. 32/2008 to 49/2008 after intimation to the petitioner company as well as the concerned claimants about next date of hearing; (d) The Appellate Authority will pass appropriate fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and after dealing with the contentions and grounds raised by the petitioner company against the claim for interest raised by 16 claimants. The Appellate Authority shall specifically and expressly deal with all contentions which may be raised by the parties and record specific reasons for its final decision in respect of all contentions; (e) The Appellate Authority shall also consider the petitioner company's contention with regard to the maximum limit in respect of interest prescribed by section 8 of the Act; (f) The amount deposited by the petitioner company shall be deposited without prejudice to the petitioner company's contentions and merely because the petitioner company is directed to deposit the amount, any adverse inference will not be drawn from the said fact; (g) The Appellate Authority will decide the appeals on their own merits in accordance with law and after dealing with the contentions of the petitioner company as well as the claimants and the Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate fresh order in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned order; (h) The amount deposited by the petitioner company shall be subject to the final decision of the Appellate Authority; (i) It is clarified that present order shall operate only if the petitioner company deposits the amount payable towards interest for the period from 1.12.1993 to 15.3.2005, otherwise the petitions shall be deemed to have been rejected. With the aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.