JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The General Manager (P/EEL), Mohanadi Coal Fields Limited, Burla, Sambalpur, being the petitioner, has filed this petition seeking to quash the order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commission (Central), Rourkela in Application No. 36(2)/2014-RKL-R vide Annexure-8 by which direction has been given to the petitioner to pay the gratuity amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum calculated at Rs.3,22,192/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The epitome of the facts is that opposite party no.1 who was working as General Manager(Finance) under the Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. joined in service on 05.03.1974 and retired on 31.12.2011 and has put in 37 years 9 months 27 days continuous service in various locations. The last wages drawn by the opposite party no.1 was Rs. 1,05,552.81 per month. He is also entitled to get total gratuity to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- which has not been paid by the petitioner. Therefore, opposite party no.1 filed a claim petition before the Controlling Authority to pay the gratuity amount together with interest for the delayed payment and also filed an application for condonation of delay. Accordingly notice was issued on 28.12.2011 in the prescribed Form “L” as required under Rule 8(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 in short the Rules 1972 for payment of gratuity. The petitioner was intimated about sanction of Rs.10,00,000/- towards gratuity and such notice was also issued under the Act only when the claim is found to be admissible on verification. Since the petitioner did not comply with the assurance, opposite party no.1 requested the petitioner time and again both orally and in writing to release the gratuity amount. After waiting for quite long time, he had prayed to the Internal Grievance Redressal Forum, Ministry of Coal, Government of India. As the application could not be filed in time, he stated the reasons that such delay in filing the application was neither deliberate nor intentional but for bona-fide intention to settle the matter without approaching the adjudicating mechanism. After waiting for quite long time, he had prayed to the Internal Grievance Redressal Forum, Ministry of Coal, Government of India. As the application could not be filed in time, he stated the reasons that such delay in filing the application was neither deliberate nor intentional but for bona-fide intention to settle the matter without approaching the adjudicating mechanism. When the matter was pending before the appropriate forum, the petitioner deposited the gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in short, “the Act, 1972” and after due adjudication, the Controlling Authority directed to pay the gratuity amount along with interest @ 10% per annum as notified by the Government of India vide notification bearing No. S.O. 874(E) dated 01.10.1987 for the period from 01.02.2012 till the date of order i.e. 23.04.2015 (1176 days) which comes to Rs. 3,22,192/-. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the office memorandum dated 10.07.2006, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to take vigilance/departmental clearances before release of the gratuity. Accordingly, vigilance clearance was sought from the South Eastern Coalfields Limited where the opposite party no.1 was previously posted. The petitioner was informed vide Fax massage dated 18.01.2012 of the Dy. Manager (P/EE)/SECL that two CBI cases bearing R.C. 1242011A0013 dated 30.11.2011 and RC1242011A0015 are pending against opposite party no.1 in respect of criminal conspiracy and cheating for getting coal for 16 and 12 MW CPP which resulted in high pecuniary gain to M/s. Mahendra Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd. Raipur & M/s. Rashmi Sponge Iron & Power Industries Ltd. Raipur. Pursuant to the said letter dated 18.01.2012 the petitioner raised a dispute on 28.04.2012 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Controlling Authority under Section 7(4) of the Act, 1972 and deposited Rs.10,00,000/- vide demand draft bearing No.122235 dated 26.04.2012 in respect of the gratuity amount of opposite party no.1 and also made a prayer to take a decision with regard to the release of the gratuity amount. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 also made an application on 18.10.2013 before the Controlling Authority for non-payment of the gratuity amount even after lapse of one year eight months of his superannuation i.e. on 31.12.2011. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 also made an application on 18.10.2013 before the Controlling Authority for non-payment of the gratuity amount even after lapse of one year eight months of his superannuation i.e. on 31.12.2011. It is contended that though opposite party no.1 had the knowledge about the dispute raised by the petitioner under Section 7(4) of the Act, 1972, opposite party no.2 passed the impugned order which cannot sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of the same. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon Rabindranath Choubey v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Sambalpur and another, 2013 (2) OLR 400 . 4. Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party no.1 per contra stated that even though the petitioner deposited the gratuity amount, as per the provisions contained under Section 7(3-A) of the Act, 1972 for payment of interest in case of delayed payment of gratuity, unless it is due to the fault of the employee and employer takes prior written permission of RLC(C) for delayed payment and there is no provision that in the event gratuity amount is deposited with the RLC(C), the employer is absolved of payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity as per section 7(3-A) of the Act,1972. He further urged that if the gratuity amount is not admissible to the employee, the employer should intimate the employee stating reasons why the same is not admissible and the same shall be endorsed to the Controlling Authority. Though the gratuity amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was deposited on 26.04.2012 and Form “L” has been issued by the petitioner to opposite party no.1 confirming that gratuity amount is payable to him, no dispute exists regarding the amount payable. That apart, there was no dispute regarding the person to whom gratuity is payable as the petitioner had to pay the gratuity to the employee who was superannuated from service. That apart, there was no dispute regarding the person to whom gratuity is payable as the petitioner had to pay the gratuity to the employee who was superannuated from service. He further submits that the petitioner had never issued any notice in Form “M” to opposite party no.1 and the petitioner having failed to prove that charge sheet was issued against the employee either by the department or by the C.B.I. and as such when no charge sheet was pending against opposite party no.1 by the date of his retirement, he is entitled to receive the gratuity amount by virtue of the notice issued in Form “L” confirming that the amount is payable and there exists no dispute so far as the amount payable is concerned under Rule 8(1)(i) of the Rules 1972 along with interest for delayed payment. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon Mohan Dakua & others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & another, 2015 (2) LLR CUT 178, H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 40 , Kerala State Cashew Vs. N. Asokan in Civil Appeal No. 5118 of 2009 arising out of S.L.P. (C) 15635 of 2008, Y.K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others in Civil Appeal No. 9087 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14570 of 2012, D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. LRs. Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2861 and Rajnagar Textile Mills Vs. Gunavant disposed of on 06.04.2010. 5. On the basis of the above pleaded facts, it is admitted that due to non-payment of gratuity admissible to opposite party no.1 under the Act, 1972, opposite party no.1 approached opposite party no.2 by filing necessary application for payment of gratuity along with interest. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a complete code containing detailed provision and not only it creates right to pay gratuity but also lays down the principles of quantification thereof. Further Section 4(6) empowers the employer to forfeit gratuity amount to the extent of damage or loss to property, if it is assessed and found that it is directly attributable to the fault of employee. Further Section 4(6) empowers the employer to forfeit gratuity amount to the extent of damage or loss to property, if it is assessed and found that it is directly attributable to the fault of employee. Section 7(3) of the Act, 1972 envisages as follows:- “The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.” Further, the employer may deposit the gratuity amount before the Controlling Authority as per Section 7(4)(a) of the Act,1972. Section 7(4)(a) reads as follows : “If there is any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, the employer shall deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity.” In case any dispute exists between the employer and employee, then the employer shall deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as it deems to be payable by it as gratuity. Section-7(3-A) speaks about payment of interest in case of delayed payment of gratuity unless it is due to the fault of the employee and the employer takes prior written permission from the RLC (C) for delayed payment. If no prior permission has been obtained, employer is liable to give interest. In the event the employer deposits the gratuity amount with the RLC(C), it will be absolved of its liability to pay interest on delayed payment of gratuity as per Section-7(3-A) of the Act, 1972. 6. Analyzing the aforementioned provisions governing the field, it appears that no dispute exists between the petitioner and opposite party no.1 as the employer had already sanctioned the gratuity amount and decided that the said amount shall be payable in Form “L” under Rule 8(1)(i) of the Rules,1972 and as such, there is no dispute as to the liability of opposite party no.1 and regarding entitlement of the employer who was to pay the decided amount of gratuity to the employee only. It is admitted that the petitioner has not taken prior permission of the RLC(C) for delayed payment. It is admitted that the petitioner has not taken prior permission of the RLC(C) for delayed payment. In the event the gratuity claimed is not admissible to the employee, the employer should intimate the employee in Form “M” stating the reasons why the same is not admissible and no such notice in Form “M” has been endorsed to the Controlling Authority as required under Rule 8(1)(ii) of the Rules, 1972. On the other hand, the petitioner has deposited the gratuity amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on 26.4.2012 in favour of the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and issued notice in Form “L” confirming that gratuity amount of Rs.10 lakhs is payable to opposite party no.1. As such, no dispute exists with regard to the payment of gratuity amount as per Rule 8(1)(i) of the Rules, 1972. Admittedly, the petitioner had neither issued notice in Form “M” to the applicant nor to the Controlling Authority as required under Rule 8(1)(ii), thereby by issuing notice in Form “L” it clearly indicates that there is no dispute regarding the person to whom gratuity is payable as they had to pay the gratuity to the employee before superannuation from service. The petitioner could not be able to prove that charge sheet was issued against the employee either by the department or by the CBI, thereby no charge sheet was pending against the employee on the date of his retirement. Apart from the same, charge sheet was neither issued prior to the retirement nor subsequently. If the payability of the gratuity amount is admitted, for delayed payment, the petitioner is liable to pay interest as per the provisions contained in Section-7(3-A) of the Act, 1972. 7. Rabindranath Choubey (supra) cited by the leaned counsel for the petitioner is a case where disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant prior to attaining the age of superannuation was pending and during pendency of such proceeding he having retired on superannuation, gratuity has been withheld. On an application filed, the Controlling Authority held that payment of gratuity is premature as the disciplinary proceeding is yet to be concluded by the management. On an application filed, the Controlling Authority held that payment of gratuity is premature as the disciplinary proceeding is yet to be concluded by the management. The appellant sought for quashing of the said order, which has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 21.03.2012 holding that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of existence of the appellate forum against the order passed by the Controlling Authority. Against the said order, writ appeal has been preferred in which the order passed by the learned single judge has been set aside and the order passed by the Controlling Authority and Regional Labour Commission have been quashed by declaring that the appellant shall be paid gratuity amount as claimed in his application under Annexure-2 series. Therefore, the contention raised placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment that due to availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable, having been negative by this Court in writ appeal, the same has no assistance to the petitioner. 8. In Mohan Dakua (Supra) referred to by the learned counsel for opposite party no.1, this Court has held that payment of gratuity is to be released within a period of 30 days from the date it becomes payable and as such, for the delay in payment of gratuity since no latches having been found on the part of the employer and the employer having not obtained prior permission from the controlling authority for such delayed payment, it is liable to pay interest @ 10%. 9. In H. Gangahanume Gowda (supra), the apex Court has held that in view of the clear mandate under the provisions of Section 7 to employer for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and there is also provision to recover the amount of gratuity with compounded interest in case the amount of gratuity payable was not paid by the employer in terms of Section-8 of the Act, since the employer did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Section 7(3-A), no discretion was left to deny interest to the employee on belated payment of gratuity and directed to pay interest @ 10%. 10. 10. Similarly in Kerla State Cashew (supra) the apex Court has held that in case the employer has obtained permission in writing from the Controlling Authority for delayed payment in that case no interest shall be payable to the employee. In the present case such permission having not been obtained, the employer is liable to pay interest on the gratuity amount. 11. In Y.K. Singla (supra) the apex Court has held that sub section (3-A) of section 7 of the Act, 1972 is a most relevant provision for determination of interest to the employee and perusal of sub section (3-A) of section 7 of the Act, 1972 leaves no room for any doubt that in case gratuity is not released to an employee within 30 days from the date it becomes payable under sub Section (3) of Section 7, the employee would be entitled to simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term loans, as the Government may, by notification specify. 12. In D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. LRs. (supra) the apex Court has held that if pensionary benefits on gratuity amount is erroneously withheld by the employer, the employee is entitled to interest from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. Similar view has also been taken in Rajnagar Textile Mills (supra). 13. For the forgoing reasons and keeping in view the judgments cited above, it is no more res integra that the opposite party no.1 is entitled to get interest on the gratuity amount payable to him and therefore, the impugned order passed in Annexure-8 dated 23.04.2015 by opposite party no.2 is wholly and fully justified. 14. The writ petition accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. No cost.