JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. When the matter is called out, counsel for the appellants is present and argued out the case at length. No body appears on behalf of respondents. 2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent is a workman, within the meaning of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that CBI has instituted a case against the respondent and charge sheet has also been filed and as per section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, management has all power, jurisdiction and authority to withhold the gratuity and hence, an speaking and detailed order has been passed on 13th January, 2015 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Nonetheless, the amount of gratuity has already been deposited before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that application for withdrawal of the amount has been preferred by the respondent-workman, in which the reply has already been filed by this appellant for not to allow withdrawal of the amount of gratuity, in view of sub section 6 of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the said application is still pending before the Controlling Authority. Meanwhile, a writ petition has been preferred by the respondent-workman being WP(L) No. 2811 of 2015 and the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 13th January, 2015 without appreciating the fact that there cannot be any other reason than section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for withholding the gratuity amount. Even, otherwise also such application has been filed before the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972. At the highest, direction may be given to the Controlling Authority to decide the said application, preferred by the respondent, in accordance with law within stipulated time. 4. Having heard counsel for Union of India and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that a criminal case has been filed by the CBI against the respondent, which is pending before the competent trial court. The appellant-management has nothing much to do except pointing out sections of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, especially section 4(6) thereof. The appellant-management has nothing much to do except pointing out sections of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, especially section 4(6) thereof. Even otherwise also application for withdrawal of the amount of gratuity is pending before the Controlling Authority, in that application, reply has already been given by this appellant. 5. We, therefore, direct the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Dhanbad to decide the application preferred by the respondent for withdrawal of amount of gratuity. The said authority will decide the application for withdrawal of the gratuity amount in accordance with law, rules, regulations and keeping in mind the judgment delivered by the competent courts. 6. With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPL No. 2811 of 2015 dated 11th August, 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside, mainly for the reasons that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that the application for withdrawal of the amount of gratuity is already pending before the Controlling Authority and in that application, objections have also been raised by this appellant. Final decision by the Controlling Authority and thereafter by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has not yet been delivered. In pending matter, we are not inclined to give any direction to the appellant. Hence. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, with the aforesaid observations. Appeal allowed.