JUDGMENT Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is made by the employer to the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Assistant Labour Commissioner) at Himmatnagar dated 31.12.2015 in Gratuity Application No. 06 of 2015. By the impugned order, the Controlling Authority has directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.4,35,435/- to the respondent with statutory interest. Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner employer has submitted that the District Registrar of Co-operative Society, Himmatnagar, vide communication dated 7.1.2015 had directed the petitioner that the amount of Rs.2,74,669/- be recovered from twelve persons each and the present respondent is one of these twelve persons and the petitioner being bound by the orders of the District Registrar of the Cooperative Society. It is submitted that under these circumstances, no payment could have been made to the respondent and therefore, the impugned order is required to be interfered with. It is submitted that there was resolution of the petitioner not to make any payment of gratuity to the petitioner. Attention of this Court is also invited to the Auditor's report to contend that the gratuity could not have been paid to the respondent. It is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 2. Having heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 2.1 The respondent was working as a Secretary of the petitioner society. He had worked for about 29 years and his resignation was accepted on 14.8.2013. The respondent asked for gratuity under the Act, which was not paid and therefore he moved the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority, on the basis of the material and the evidence led before it, passed an order on 31.12.2015 holding that the respondent was entitled to receive gratuity, which was calculated as Rs.4,35,435/-. 2.2 It is not in dispute that the respondent had worked with the petitioner society and it is also not in dispute that the respondent is entitled to receive gratuity. 2.2 It is not in dispute that the respondent had worked with the petitioner society and it is also not in dispute that the respondent is entitled to receive gratuity. The case of the petitioner before this Court is and which was before the Controlling Authority that, the State authority perceived some illegality in the functioning of the petitioner society, for which an auditor was appointed, who gave report, which is on record, and on the basis of it the District Registrar of Cooperative Society, Himmatnagar gave instructions on 7.1.2015 to the petitioner for recovery of certain amount, referring therein the names of total 12 persons, which also include Chairman, Vice-chairman, nine members of the Managing Committee and the present respondent (Secretary). The Registrar perceived the illegality to the tune of Rs.32,96,030/- and the said amount is directed to be recovered equally from these twelve persons and thus the amount of Rs.2,74,669.16/- is attributed to the share of the present respondent. On the basis of that communication, the gratuity which is calculated as Rs.4,35,435/- is not paid by the petitioner to the respondent. 2.3 This Court finds that, the Controlling Authority has noted and it is not in dispute even before this Court that, no notice is ever given to the respondent for any illegality. No responsibility is fastened on the respondent by the petitioner. No notice is given for recovery/adjustment of the said amount, from the amount of gratuity otherwise payable to the respondent for the service of 29 years. Under these circumstances, the Controlling Authority ought to have given the direction, which it has given and there is no reason for any interference therein by this Court. The petition therefore needs to be dismissed. 3. The lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner is further evident from the following facts. 3.1 The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the direction of the District Registrar Co-operative Society, the gratuity could not have been paid. Had the bona fide of the petitioner been clear, the balance amount would have been paid to the respondent, which they have not. 3.2 There is an additional factor against the petitioner. The order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is appealable before the Appellate Authority under the Act. But for that, the amount needs to be deposited first. 3.2 There is an additional factor against the petitioner. The order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is appealable before the Appellate Authority under the Act. But for that, the amount needs to be deposited first. The petitioner has chosen not to file appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority and has straight way approached this Court, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner is examined by this Court on merits and this Court finds that the impugned order is just and proper and the same need not be interfered with on any ground. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. It is directed that, the amount as directed by the Controlling Authority shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 within a period of one month from today.