ORDER : The petitioner in this writ petition has called in the order of the controlling authority dated 18.9.2013 in terms of Annexure-A and also the order of the appellate authority dated 24.2.2015 in terms of Annexure-C, whereby the authorities have determined the difference of gratuity payable to the workman while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner with regard to delay in approaching the Court. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing or respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Respondent No.3-workman in the instant case joined the services of the Corporation on 9.1.1957 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 5.1.1992 after rendering the service of 32 years 3 months and 5 days. The gratuity that was payable to the workman in terms of the regulation at Rs.1,01,103/-was settled at the time of his superannuation. 4. For the first time, after about 20 years of his retirement, the workman filed proceedings before the controlling authority for payment of difference in gratuity on 3.11.2011, close to 20 years. The Corporation took up a specific contention that in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the workman, the Corporation has no records with it to counter the contentions of the respondent workman. Both the authorities viz., the controlling authority and the appellate authority, glossed over the contentions raised by the Corporation on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial piece of social legislation and delay cannot defeat the rights of the workman. 5. Challenging aforesaid orders of the controlling authority and the appellate authority determining the difference of gratuity payable to the workman at Rs.26,428/-, the Corporation has filed the subject writ petition. 6. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 5.1.1992 and received the gratuity that was payable to him on the date of superannuation. After about 20 years of his retirement, on attaining the age of superannuation, the workman initiated proceedings before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for payment of difference in gratuity and the authority brushing aside the contention of the Corporation with regard to inordinate delay has allowed the application and determined the aforesaid amount of difference in gratuity payable to the workman. 7. 7. This Court in W.P. No.33640/201, while answering an identical claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act has held as follows: “7. Even on the merit of the matter, the petitioner employer not bound by law to maintain the service records of the 3rd respondent for over 14 years after retirement, was at a disadvantageous position to answer the claim of the workman. The fact whether the 3rd respondent had worked continuously during the period from 19/8/1966, the date on which his name was included in the badli list of drivers and brought on time scale of pay on 15/2/1967, a pure question of fact had to be decided based on records, which apparently, were not available with the Corporation since 14 years had elapsed after the 3rd respondent retired from service. In that view of the matter, it was too farfetched for the respondents to expect the petitioner – Corporation to produce records relating to continuous service, while on the badli list of drivers. So also is to the same effect regarding hiving off one month and 20 days from out of the period of service, due to unauthorized absence, leave, LWA, etc., termed as break in service, in computing gratuity. Thus, on merits too, the authorities fell in error in accepting the claim of the 3rd respondent, without relevant material to substantiate the claims. 8. The question as to, whether the 3rd respondent received Rs.66,430/-on retirement or was paid Rs.66,642/-, as contended by the petitioner Corporation again a pure question of fact, over which neither parties produced records. Apparently, delay of 14 years in filing the application resulted in records not being available. On that score too, the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority fell in error in holding that Rs.66,430/-was paid by the corporation.” In terms of the afore-extracted paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in the identical set of facts, would clearly take away the right of a workman to claim difference in gratuity which was once available to him on account of delay in initiation of proceedings. 8. Thus, delay in approaching the authorities to claim difference in gratuity has defeated the equity that was available to the workman at a particular point in time in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 9. 8. Thus, delay in approaching the authorities to claim difference in gratuity has defeated the equity that was available to the workman at a particular point in time in terms of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 9. Delay of 20 years in approaching the controlling authority should have been by itself the reason to reject the application seeking difference in gratuity. In view of the afore-extracted judgment of this Court and the facts obtaining in the case on hand, the orders impugned passed by the authorities are erroneous. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The orders of the controlling authority and appellate authority under the Gratuity Act, impugned herein, are set aside. (iii) The amount in deposit before the appellate authority by the Corporation be refunded to the Corporation.