JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.10.2010 (in Appeal No. 10 of 2010) passed by appellate authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No. 13 of 2009. 2.1 By the said order dated 11.1.2010 the controlling authority granted gratuity application filed by present respondent and directed the petitioner to pay amount mentioned in the order towards gratuity to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority under the Act. 2.2 Even the appellate authority did not accept the case of the petitioner and rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the controlling authority. 2.3 After examination of the material on record and after considering the rival contentions two authorities constituted under the Act recorded concurrent findings of fact and accepted the case of the respondent and the said findings of fact are against the petitioner. Both the authorities have directed the petitioner to pay gratuity as claimed by the respondent. 2.4 Against two orders wherein concurrent findings of fact are recorded by first adjudicating authority and the appellate authority, the petitioner has taken out present petition. A writ petition against two concurrent orders does not deserve to be entertained. This is the first reason in light of which this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. 2.5 The second reason in light of which the petition does not deserve to be entertained is the quantum of the amount which is directed to be paid towards claim for gratuity. This Court considers decree upto the sum of Rs. 30,000/- as petty amount and ordinarily refuses to entertain writ petition against decree for petty amount. In present case the authorities have awarded Rs. 29,077/-. The decreetal amount being petty amount, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. 2.6 The main ground on which the petitioner disputed the respondent's claim towards gratuity is date of joining. 2.7 According to the case of the respondent he had joined service with the petitioner in 2001 whereas the petitioner claimed that the respondent joined service in 2005. The decreetal amount being petty amount, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. 2.6 The main ground on which the petitioner disputed the respondent's claim towards gratuity is date of joining. 2.7 According to the case of the respondent he had joined service with the petitioner in 2001 whereas the petitioner claimed that the respondent joined service in 2005. 2.8 Both the authorities under the Act have reached to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent was appointed in 2005. The authorities also found, in light of copy of extract of attendance register for the month of July 2001, that the respondent was employed with the petitioner since 2001. 3. The second ground on which the petitioner challenges the award is with regard to quantification of the amount. The petitioner claimed that the respondent approached the controlling authority with the case that at the time when he was discontinued from service his salary was Rs. 7900/- however actually the respondent's basic salary was Rs. 6300/- and Rs. 800/- was paid to him towards conveyance allowance and Rs. 800/- was paid toward food 3.1 Of course any relevant document e.g. pay receipt was not placed on record before the authority to establish the bifurcation of salary. Despite absence of any evidence which would establish such bifurcation the petitioner claimed that the said Rs. 1600/- should not have been taken into account and should have been taken out from calculation of "wages" for quantifying gratuity amount since allowance do not form part of 'wages' as defined under the Act. 4. The 3rd ground on which learned advocate for the petitioner assails the order by said 2 authorities is that the authorities did not believe the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in response to the application for production of documents viz. the attendance register/pay register. 4.1 It is claimed that the authorities ought to have read the said affidavit. It is further claimed that in absence of any order the authorities could not have drawn adverse inference. 5. So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent that the respondent herein filed application before controlling authority with the allegation that his service came to an end by way of resignation w.e.f. 15.10.2008. 5. So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent that the respondent herein filed application before controlling authority with the allegation that his service came to an end by way of resignation w.e.f. 15.10.2008. 5.1 It was claimed by the respondent that since the employer failed to pay gratuity despite the fact that he had worked with the opponent employer for 7 years and 6 months (from 11.6.2001 to 15.10.2008) he was compelled to file application. 5.2 In the application the respondent claimed that at the time when his service came to an end by way of resignation on 15.10.2008 his salary was Rs. 7900/-. 5.3 On such details the respondent claimed Rs. 36,461/- towards gratuity. 6. Present petitioner opposed the said application on the ground that present respondent had not worked with it for 5 years and had not acquired eligibility/entitlement by complying the requirement prescribed by Section 4(1) of the Act and therefore he was not entitled for gratuity. 7. In this background the litigation ensued between the present petitioner employer and present respondent workman before the controlling authority. 7.1 During the proceedings before controlling authority the petitioner filed application seeking production of documents by the employers i.e. attendance register/pay register so as to establish that he had joined service in 2001. 7.2 The respondent claimed/asserted that the petitioner had not given him copy of appointment letter and since salary was paid by obtaining signature in the pay register, he did not have any document/material to establish his claim that he was employed by the petitioner since June 2001 and therefore the document more particularly the attendance register and pay register was necessary and were very vital for deciding his entitlement/eligibility and his claim. 7.3 Instead of producing the said documents before the controlling authority, the petitioner employer tendered an affidavit made by one of the employees wherein the petitioner employer claimed that attendance register/pay register were misplaced when office was shifted. On such ground the petitioner did not place the said documents on record of the Court. 7.4 On the other hand the respondent claimant appears to have produced a document on record i.e. a photocopy of the attendance register for month of July 2001. On such ground the petitioner did not place the said documents on record of the Court. 7.4 On the other hand the respondent claimant appears to have produced a document on record i.e. a photocopy of the attendance register for month of July 2001. 7.5 On the strength of the said document wherein his name, alongwith other persons/employees, appeared at serial No. 8 in the said document he claimed that the said document established that he was in service with the petitioner establishment in July 2001. 7.6 It is relevant to mention that there is dispute between the petitioner and the respondent with reference to the date when the respondent joined the service of the petitioner company i.e. about respondent's date of joining the petitioner company. According to the respondent he joined service with the petitioner company on 11.6.2001 and he tendered resignation on 15.10.2008. Whereas the petitioner employer claimed that the respondent had joined service in 2005. 8. The petitioner who had not placed on record the documents viz. pay register and attendance register asked for by the respondent and instead had filed affidavit, disputed said photocopy on the ground that it did not bear signature of any authorized officer. 8.1 It is pertinent that the petitioner did not dispute the fact that other 7 persons whose names appeared in the said document were not its employees, and/or that the said persons were not in its employment in July 2001. 9. The respondent claimant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and thereafter the respondent claimant was subjected to cross examination by the petitioner. Entire deposition was recorded by the controlling authority. 10. The petitioner examined one witness and filed affidavit of one employee in response to the application for production of documents. 11. After the stage of evidence was concluded, the controlling authority heard submissions by the parties and after examining material on record and rival contentions. After due consideration the authority accepted the claim of the respondent claimant and rejected the case of the petitioner. 11.1 The controlling authority accepted that the respondent was employed by the petitioner since 2001 and that therefore he had completed qualifying service of 5 years and more i.e. 7 years and 6 months. 11.2 On this count controlling authority accepted the petitioner's case that the respondent's basic salary was Rs. 11.1 The controlling authority accepted that the respondent was employed by the petitioner since 2001 and that therefore he had completed qualifying service of 5 years and more i.e. 7 years and 6 months. 11.2 On this count controlling authority accepted the petitioner's case that the respondent's basic salary was Rs. 6300/- and other amount was not included in wages for quantifying gratuity. 11.3 The controlling authority calculated amount payable towards gratuity by taking into account Rs. 6300/- i.e. basic salary only. 11.4 Having reached such conclusion controlling authority quantified amount payable by the petitioner towards gratuity. 11.5 The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said order and filed appeal before appellate authority. 11.6 The appellate authority, after considering the rival submissions accepted the order of the controlling authority. Having reached to the conclusion that the controlling authority had not committed any error either as to the findings of fact or to the decision about entitlement in light of the provisions of the Act, the appellate authority rejected the appeal. 12. As mentioned earlier Mr. Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the orders on above mentioned grounds. 13. In view of this Court, present petition does not deserve to be entertained for the two reasons mentioned hereinabove earlier viz. (a) writ petition is filed against two orders where concurrent findings of fact are recorded; and (b) the decreetal amount is petty amount which does not warrant or justify invocation of discretionary writ jurisdiction. 13.1 However, since contentions as regards entitlement/eligibility have been raised it is necessary for the Court to decide the said issue. 13.2 As mentioned earlier the respondent claimed that he joined service of the petitioner in 2001 (i.e. w.e.f. 11.6.2001). According to the claimant he tendered resignation from service on 15.10.2008 and was relieved from service w.e.f. 15.10.2008. 13.3 Substantial dispute is with regard to the date of joining. 13.4 Of course there is some difference between the parties so far as the date when the service of the respondent came to an end. However, the said dispute/difference is not acceptable and does not have material bearing on substantial issue or even as regards quantification (because the difference is hardly about 20/25 days). 13.4 Of course there is some difference between the parties so far as the date when the service of the respondent came to an end. However, the said dispute/difference is not acceptable and does not have material bearing on substantial issue or even as regards quantification (because the difference is hardly about 20/25 days). 13.5 Now, so far as the date of joining the service is concerned, according to the respondent he was working with the petitioner since 2001 whereas the petitioner claimed that the respondent joined the service in 2005. 13.6 It is pertinent that the petitioner did not place any document on record to establish the said assertion. 13.7 It is pertinent to note that the petitioner, as an employer would be in his possession relevant evidence and various documents e.g. identity card register, attendance register, pay register, bonus register etc., however, the petitioner did not place any material on record before the controlling authority to establish that the respondent had joined the service in 2005 and not in 2001 as claimed by him. 13.8 Since the respondent did not have any document in his possession, as none was supplied by the petitioner, he had submitted an application for production of documents. 13.9 The petitioner filed affidavit declaring that the pay register and attendance register were not available as the same were misplaced. 13.10 On examination of the said affidavit, it does not inspire confidence. 13.11 The affidavit is made by one of the employees, without disclosing material aspects and the relevant facts, the petitioner merely claimed that the said documents are misplaced. 13.12 The affidavit does not disclose and does not clarify (i) the period when office was shifted (ii) the place from where and the place where the office was shifted (iii) which documents were misplaced (iv) or only pay register and attendance registers were misplaced (v) the documents related to which period were misplaced (vi) when did the employer notice that the documents were misplaced (vii) what steps were taken to find/trace out the documents (viii) whether the details were computerized record or manual/hand written record etc. 13.13 None of the relevant details are mentioned or clarified in the affidavit. 13.14 Further, the affidavit merely said that the said documents were (only) "misplaced" and it did not claim that the said documents were "destroyed". 14. 13.13 None of the relevant details are mentioned or clarified in the affidavit. 13.14 Further, the affidavit merely said that the said documents were (only) "misplaced" and it did not claim that the said documents were "destroyed". 14. Besides this, according to the affidavit pay register and attendance register were misplaced, however, other registers which would be available with the petitioner e.g. bonus register or identity card register or provident fund register or E.S.I. register were not placed on record before the controlling authority but the deponent i.e. witness of the petitioner claimed that since the demand was only for attendance register or pay register there was no question of placing any other register. 14.1 The said claim and/or explanation by the petitioner lacks bona fides and does not inspire confidence 14.2 It is pertinent that even before this Court the documents are not shown. 14.3 Further in view of the fact that though the petitioner would have in his possession several other documents wherefrom the date of joining of employee can be established, (atleast appointment letter) the petitioner conveniently did not place any material on record. 14.4 The petitioner could have and should have placed on record other registers or atleast appointment letter but the employed tried to hide behind and take shelter behind the excuse that any other register or document was not demanded. The said explanation - rather excuse - lacks bona fides. 15. Under the circumstances, the decision of the controlling authority to reject the petitioner's reply or explanation or claim and to accept the respondent's claim about the date of joining cannot be faulted. 16. It is pertinent to mention that in this background the controlling authority relied on the document submitted by the respondent viz. photocopy of the pay register placed on record by the respondent. 16.1 In present petition the said document is placed at annexure-I page 82. 16.2 It is pertinent to note that the said document reflects the name of the respondent as one of the employees, who was in petitioner's employment in July 2001. photocopy of the pay register placed on record by the respondent. 16.1 In present petition the said document is placed at annexure-I page 82. 16.2 It is pertinent to note that the said document reflects the name of the respondent as one of the employees, who was in petitioner's employment in July 2001. 16.3 On this count it is relevant to mention that on one hand the petitioner did not place any documents on record, not even those which would be in his possession and custody and on the other hand the petitioner disputed the said documents on the ground it did not bear signature of any officer or name of the company. 17. It is however, also relevant to note that the petitioner did not dispute or deny the fact that other persons whose names are contained in and reflected from the said documents were not its employees and were not employed by it in July 17.1 It was not, and it is not, the case of the petitioner that the other persons whose names were mentioned in the said document are not/were not its employees. When there was no objection with regard to the names of other persons/employees in the documents, and when it was not claimed and when it is not claimed that the said other persons are/were never its employees and were not in its employment in July 2001, the objection against the document which bears/reflects name of the respondent is neither justifiable nor sustainable and cannot be accepted. 18. The controlling authority relied on the said document and accepted the respondent's claim. In view of this Court, in light of the facts of the case and in light of above discussed aspects the said decision of the controlling authority cannot be faulted. 19. Having regard to the above mentioned aspects, the petitioner's contention that the learned Labour Court ought to have relied on the affidavit with regard to the production of documents and the controlling authority ought not have accepted the documents placed on record by the respondent, are not sustainable and the said contention deserves to be rejected and are hereby rejected. 20. In view of the fact that the controlling authority accepted the petitioner's case so far as the salary of the respondent is concerned, it is necessary to deal with the contention raised by the petitioner. 20. In view of the fact that the controlling authority accepted the petitioner's case so far as the salary of the respondent is concerned, it is necessary to deal with the contention raised by the petitioner. 20.1 It is abundantly clear that learned Counsel for the petitioner raised such contention without seriously considering the order of the controlling authority who, actually and in effect, accepted the petitioner's case with regard to the total salary eligible for quantification of the gratuity amount. 20.2 The authority has accepted petitioner's contention as regards components of wages and for calculating/quantifying gratuity amount "allowances" are not taken into account and gratuity amount is quantified on the basis of only basic salary. The petitioner, thus, has no basis or justification to oppose said calculation. 21. In view of the fact that workman has not opposed the conclusion, there is no need for further deliberation on that count. 22. The foregoing discussions bring out that the controlling authority has not committed any error in its decision with regard to the date of joining. The said findings of fact is also accepted by the appellate authority. 22.1 Under the circumstances the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the two concurrent orders. The petition therefore fails and deserves to be rejected. 23. Mr. Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner expressed an apprehension that the respondent may rely on the order of the controlling authority or this judgment before other Forum to claim other benefits. 24. The apprehension is misplaced and unjustified inasmuch as if the respondent raises any claim with regard to any benefit then the respondent will have to establish his right and entitlement in accordance with law and in light of the relevant provisions applicable to the particular claim and such claim/demand would be decided in light of the relevant provisions and evidence on record. Therefore the apprehension is misplaced. With the aforesaid clarifications the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. Accordingly the petition is disposed of. Orders accordingly.