ORDER : S. SUJATHA, J. 1. Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order passed by the Controlling Authority-Respondent No. 2 as well as the appellate authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act for short). 2. The sole contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the Controlling Authority-respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter for the determination of the gratuity under the provisions of the Act for the reason that the petitioner is having branches outside the State. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on Section 2(a)(i) of the Act would contend that the petitioner is a Transport Company having branches in more than one State and thus, Controlling Authority appointed by the Central Government is the competent authority to adjudicate the matter of gratuity under the provisions of the Act. In other words, the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government lacks jurisdiction to determine the gratuity of the workman employed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Smt. mangalamba Rao, justifying the order of the Authority would contend that a Writ Appeal was preferred by the petitioner/management before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby 24 workmen of the petitioner establishment were retrenched. This Court in the said Writ Appeal has confirmed the order of retrenchment and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 each to all the 24 workmen in addition to retrenchment compensation. Placing reliance on the said Judgment in the case of the Management of M/s CPC (India) Limited v. Sri. Vishwanatha Moolya (W.A. No. 3532/2009 & anr. Disposed of on 25.06.2013), learned counsel contends that the petitioner was registered as a factory under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. The status of the factory of the petitioner company was cancelled only w.e.f. 04.11.2012 as much as, the order passed by the authorities impugned herein is prior to the order passed by the authorities under the Factories Act, Thus, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned AGA Smt. Susheela appearing for respondents 1 and 2 supports the order passed by the authorities. 6. 5. Learned AGA Smt. Susheela appearing for respondents 1 and 2 supports the order passed by the authorities. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is discerned that the Controlling Authority has framed an additional preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the claim made by the workman before the Controlling Authority. After hearing the parties and analysing the material evidence, the Controlling Authority by order dated 08.04.2011 held that the competent authority to determine the gratuity payable to the workman in the present case is the State Government in view of Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act. It transpires that the said order of the Controlling Authority dated 08.04.2011 was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.15829 and 16656-674/2011 and the said Writ Petitions were dismissed on 13.62.2012 as withdrawn. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the correctness of the order of the Controlling Authority on the issue of maintainability based on the jurisdictional aspect of the competent authority. As the writ petitions having been dismissed, the petitioner is acquiesced from challenging the jurisdiction of the authority at this stage after the determination of gratuity made by the Controlling Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Act. Secondly, the petitioner was registered as a factory under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. This is an undisputed fact. The authorities under the Factories Act have cancelled the licence of the petitioner as a factory by an endorsement dated 04.11.2012 as per Annexure "F" to the writ petition. This order of cancellation of licence under the Factories Act establishes that on the day of passing of the orders by the authorities, the status of the petitioner was a factory under the Factories Act. If so, having more branches outside the State, would not enable the petitioner to take shelter under Section 2(a)(i) of the Act to dispute the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority constituted by the State Government. Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act envisages that in any other case, other than Section 2(a)(i), the State Government is the appropriate Government. Petitioners factory cannot be considered as an establishment having branches in more than one State to attract Section 2(a)(i). On the other hand, the petitioners factory in Karnataka falls only under Section 2(ii). Section 2(a)(ii) of the Act envisages that in any other case, other than Section 2(a)(i), the State Government is the appropriate Government. Petitioners factory cannot be considered as an establishment having branches in more than one State to attract Section 2(a)(i). On the other hand, the petitioners factory in Karnataka falls only under Section 2(ii). Thus, the authorities appointed by the State Government were competent to adjudicate the determination of gratuity of the employees of petitioner. 7. For these reasons, the Controlling Authority as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act is an authority appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 3 of the Act which is the State Government in the present case. The Controlling Authority constituted by the State Government is the competent authority to deal with the determination of gratuity under the Act The appellate authority has extensively considered this aspect of the matter and held chat the Controlling Authority constituted under the State Government had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which cannot be found fault with. No irregularity or illegality is found in the orders passed by the authorities. No other ground is urged by the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders in this Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. The petitioner/management shall comply with the orders passed by the authorities as expeditiously as possible, at any event within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.