JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Ms. Kamani, learned advocate for Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent - employee. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- "5(a) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside judgment and order dated 29-12-2010 passed by the Respondent No. 3 - the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal No. 25/2010 (Annexure-A) and the judgment and order dated 28-5-2009 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Application No. JTC/26/2008 (Annexure-B); 2.1 The petitioner is a cooperative society and it has brought under challenge two orders passed by the authorities appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 i.e. the order passed by the controlling authority and the order passed by the appellate authority whereby the appellate authority rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the controlling authority. 3. From the facts of the case and from submissions by learned counsel for the contesting parties, it has emerged that on 25.3.2008, the claimant before the controlling authority tendered resignation from service with the employer. It appears that, at the relevant time, the employee was working as a secretary with the society and by letter of resignation dated 25.3.2008, he informed the society that he intends to be relieved w.e.f. 31.3.2008. The resignation was accepted by the competent authority and the employee was relieved from service w.e.f. 31.3.2008. 3.1 In the letter of resignation, the employee had requested the society to pay gratuity and provident fund amount. 3.2 According to the petitioner society, the amount payable towards gratuity was calculated and the employee was found to be eligible for Rs. 56,700/- towards gratuity. Accordingly, on 15.5.2008 the said amount i.e. Rs. 56,700/- was paid to the claimant vide cheque No. 10081 under voucher No. 72. The petitioner society has also claimed that on the same day i.e. on 15.5.2008, the employee had acknowledged the receipt of the said cheque for Rs. 56,700/- (typed copy of the receipt is placed on record of the petition at page No. 26). 3.3 From the record, it appears that according to the record of the society, the employee was entitled for Rs. 56,700/- (typed copy of the receipt is placed on record of the petition at page No. 26). 3.3 From the record, it appears that according to the record of the society, the employee was entitled for Rs. 97,747.06 towards provident fund. The said amount was paid to the claimant vide cheque No. 10101 under voucher No. 71. According to the petitioner society, the said amount towards provident fund was also paid to the claimant on the same day i.e. on 15.5.2008 and he had executed receipt acknowledging the payment. 3.4 It appears that within two or three days after the payment of the above mentioned amount, the employee died. Subsequently, the heir (widow) of the employee filed gratuity claim application before the controlling authority. The controlling authority examined the records. It appears from the record that apart from the receipts executed by the employee, the controlling authority seems to have closely examined employee's pass book and on such examination, the controlling authority found that Rs. 56,700/- was deposited in the employee's account on 15.5.2008 but the authority also noticed that said amount withdrawn on the same day. 3.5 In light of the entry of withdrawal of the amount on the same day, some doubt crept in the controlling authority's mind and that therefore, the controlling authority declined to accept the employer's claim that the amount was paid to the employee. In paragraph No. 6 of his order, the controlling authority has observed that the entry is recorded in the pass book of the employee but simultaneously there is entry reflecting withdrawal of the same amount and therefore, it appears that actually the amount does not seem to have come in the hands of the employee. It appears that the controlling authority was influenced by the fact that if the amount was paid by cheque, then, the amount must have been actually credited to the employee's account and that the details as to the date when the cheque was deposited and the amount was credited in the account were not in order. The authority also considered the issue that how could it be possible that on the same day the cheque was deposited and the amount was credited into claimant's account on the same day and the amount was even withdrawn from his account on the same day. The authority also considered the issue that how could it be possible that on the same day the cheque was deposited and the amount was credited into claimant's account on the same day and the amount was even withdrawn from his account on the same day. In light of such doubt, the controlling authority recorded a finding that the amount was not paid to the employee. 3.6 The said order was carried before the appellate authority and the appellate authority also confirmed the order of the controlling authority. 4. In this background Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that while passing impugned order controlling authority and appellate authority have traveled beyond their jurisdiction inasmuch as once it is established that the concerned employee had issued receipt acknowledging payment of gratuity (as well as provident fund) then the authority under the Act did not have jurisdiction to undertake further probe and to search for reasons as to why amount was withdrawn on the same day. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the documents at pages 28 to 30 to submit that in the passbook the amount is shown as withdrawn. 5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the document on which the learned advocate for the petitioner society relied (i.e. the passbook) is, actually passbook of the bank and not of the employee. She further submitted that the petitioner failed to establish that the amount was paid to the employee. She made attempt to dispute the resignation as well and she submitted that the resignation was not tendered voluntarily. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the contesting parties. 7. So far as the respondent's attempt to dispute the letter of resignation is concerned, it is necessary to clarify that the said dispute is beyond the scope of this petition. Further according to letter of resignation the employee tendered resignation on 25th March and within short time thereafter he died but before his death he had not withdrawn the resignation and/or he had not raised any dispute with regard to the letter of resignation. Further according to letter of resignation the employee tendered resignation on 25th March and within short time thereafter he died but before his death he had not withdrawn the resignation and/or he had not raised any dispute with regard to the letter of resignation. Besides this if there is any dispute with regard to the veracity of the letter of resignation then appropriate dispute can be raised before competent Court however in the proceedings under Gratuity Act legality of the letter of resignation and the issue as to whether it was tendered voluntarily cannot be considered. 8. Now, so far as the society's claim that gratuity amount was paid to the employee is concerned, it is true that employee seems to have tendered resignation and he also seems to have executed receipt acknowledging payment of Rs. 56,700/- towards gratuity. However it is also a matter of fact that in the receipt dated 15.5.2008 cheque number is not mentioned. The details with regard to the name of the bank on which the cheque was drawn and the details as to the date when cheque was deposited by the claimant in his account and the date on which the cheque was cleared and the date on which the amount in question was credited in his account are not coming out from the document available on record. In this background the controlling authority seems to have raised doubt with reference to the petitioner society's claim that the amount was paid to the employees. The controlling authority has raised doubt in view of the fact that the date of alleged payment to the employee and the date when the amount was cleared from the employees account is the same. When payment was made through cheque then in the first instance the employee would deposit the cheque in his account and thereafter the cheque would be forwarded to the clearing house where the cheque would be cleared and then amount would be credited to the account of the employee and only thereafter the amount could have been withdrawn by the employee or someone authorized by the employee. This process would atleast take one day, if not more. Whereas in present case amount is withdrawn on the same day and actual amount does not seem to have been credited in the account of the employee. This process would atleast take one day, if not more. Whereas in present case amount is withdrawn on the same day and actual amount does not seem to have been credited in the account of the employee. Thus, unless relevant aspects are clarified by the society and supporting material is placed on record for consideration by the authority proper finding cannot be recorded. 9. In this view of the matter it is necessary for the society to clarify the said aspects and to place necessary details relevant documents before the controlling authority and to demonstrate actual payment to the employee either from its record or by calling for the documents from the bank with regard to the date on which the amount was cleared and deposited in the employees account and the date on which it was withdrawn from the account of the employees and to whose account the amount was debited. Since this aspects are not clearly established it is submitted by learned advocate that the matter may be reexamined by the controlling authority where both the sides may place additional documents and details to remove doubt of the controlling authority and/or to clarify relevant aspect. 10. In light of the facts of the case, the submission is justified and deserves to be accepted. Therefore, following order is passed:- 10.1 The orders passed by the controlling authority and appellate authority are set aside and the case i.e. Gratuity Claim Application No. 26 of 2008 is remanded to the controlling authority at Mehsana. 10.2 The controlling authority will intimate the date of hearing to the applicant and the petitioner society and allow the parties to lead necessary evidence and after hearing the parties the controlling authority will pass fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law without being influenced by his own order or by appellate authority's order. It is clarified that so far as present order is concerned the observations in this order are made only with a view to considering rival submissions however, this Court has not expressed any view or conclusion on merits of the rival contention or subject matter and that therefore observation in present order shall not be construed as expression or view of this Court on merits. With the aforesaid clarifications the petition is partly allowed. Rule is lade absolute to the aforesaid extent. Orders accordingly.