JUDGMENT M.S.KARNIK, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners - Shri 38. wp 7926.19.doc Naidu, learned Counsel Shri Palshikar appearing for Respondent No.1 , Shri Shaligram appearing for Respondent - employees. Since these Petitions involve common issues, the same are disposed of by this common order. 3. The challenge in these Petitions is to the impugned orders passed by the Controlling Authority at page no. 90 of the Petitions and the Appellate Authority at page 130 of the compilation. Briefly stated it is the case of the Petitioners that they are contractors who were engaged by ONGC to provide security guards at the establishment of ONGC in Mumbai. Accordingly, the guards were supplied. The Petitioners were registered as private security agency in which capacity they provided security services to ONGC and other commercial establishments. On 30/04/2010, the contract of the Petitioners with ONGC came to an end due to eful of time. The Petitioners directed the employees to resume work at different sites. The employees did not resume work, but continued to work with the ONGC. The employees fled proceedings against ONGC in respect of their employment after termination of the contract with the Petitioners, with which we are not concerned in these Petitions. Suffice it to say that the employees severed their 38. wp 7926.19.doc relations with the Petitioners from 30/04/2010 and since then there is no relationship of employer and employee enlisting between the Petitioners and the Respondents - employees. 4. We are concerned with the claim of the gratuity made by the employees as against the Petitioners during the period when the employees worked with the Petitioners on the establishment of the ONGC. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that pursuant to the representations made by the employees, the gratuity due and payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the 'said Act' for short) was in fact paid to the employees. Shri Naidu relied upon the receipts which are at pages 41 to 61 indicating payment of gratuity to the employees and its receipt. Shri Naidu submits that having satisfied the claim of the employees under the said Act, nothing was due and payable by the Petitioners to the Respondent - employees. According to the Petitioners, the claim under the Act stood satisfied. 6. Shri Naidu submits that having satisfied the claim of the employees under the said Act, nothing was due and payable by the Petitioners to the Respondent - employees. According to the Petitioners, the claim under the Act stood satisfied. 6. Shri Naidu made a grievance that despite satisfaction of the claims, the Respondent - employees approached the 38. wp 7926.19.doc Controlling Authority under the said Act by fling an application and claimed the gratuity amount stated in the application. It is the grievance of Shri Naidu that the said claim was made without pointing out that the amount of gratuity due and payable was already paid over to the Respondent - employees. According to Shri Naidu, assuming the employees have a claim for gratuity, then it could have been only for the differential amount after deducting the amount of gratuity that was already paid. In the submission of Shri Naidu, the Application therefore was not bonafide. 7. It is nelt contended by Shri Naidu, that the Petitioners are the Contractors supplying security guards to the various employers within the State of Maharashtra. According to him, as their operations are restricted to the State of Maharashtra, it is the Controlling Authority of the State Government under the said Act which will have jurisdiction and not the Controlling Authority of the Central Government. In short, it is his submission that as per Section 2(a) of the said Act, appropriate Government is the State Government and not the Central Government. It is his submission that the issue of jurisdiction, though raised specifically, is not at all considered by both the Authorities. 38. wp 7926.19.doc 8. Shri Shaligram on the other hand supported the impugned orders. According to him, the calculations are made on the basis of the provisions of the said Act. He submits that the Respondent - employees rendered long years of continuous services with the Petitioners and in some cases almost 18 years. The Respondent - employees are justified in claiming gratuity on the basis of last drawn wages as stated in the application. Shri Shaligram submits that as payment of gratuity is only a matter of calculation, the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority has granted the claim of gratuity in terms of the provisions of the said Act and therefore no interference with the impugned order is warranted. Shri Shaligram submits that as payment of gratuity is only a matter of calculation, the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority has granted the claim of gratuity in terms of the provisions of the said Act and therefore no interference with the impugned order is warranted. He further submits that the employees are waiting to get their rightful dues since the year 2010 and therefore the employer, now is not justified in raising a challenge to the lawful claim made and granted to the employees. Shri Shaligram nelt invited my attention to the provisions of the said Act to contend that as employees were working in the establishment of the ONGC, it is the Central Government which is the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the said Act and therefore, the submission of Shri Naidu that the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction is unfounded. 38. wp 7926.19.doc 9. I have gone through the impugned orders. Shri Shaligram fairly submitted that the Respondent -employees were in receipt of certain amounts towards the gratuity paid by the Petitioners. It is however his contention that the Petitioners did not pay the entire amounts as per the provisions of the said Act which has now been determined by the Controlling Authority. 10. From the reading of the impugned orders, it can be seen that the Controlling Authority has granted the claim made by the Respondent - employees on the basis of what is claimed by them in the application and in some cases, the amount more than what is claimed, purportedly having regard to the provisions of the said Act. There is no finding in the impugned orders that the claim for gratuity is determined after deducting the amounts which are already paid over by the Petitioners to the Respondent - employees. There are receipts on record indicating the payment of gratuity to the Respondent - employees due and payable as per the calculation of the Petitioners. Even Shri Shaligram did not dispute that these payments were in fact received, but it is his case that the amount of gratuity was not calculated properly and the employees are entitled to amounts in elcess of what is paid to them by the Petitioners with interest. 38. wp 7926.19.doc 11. Even Shri Shaligram did not dispute that these payments were in fact received, but it is his case that the amount of gratuity was not calculated properly and the employees are entitled to amounts in elcess of what is paid to them by the Petitioners with interest. 38. wp 7926.19.doc 11. In my view, the orders passed by the Authorities below call for interference as the same are passed without at all taking into the consideration the stand of the Petitioners that the entire claim of the payment of gratuity is satisfied. There are materials on record indicating that the Respondent - employees are in receipt of gratuity amount paid by the Petitioners. It is also material to note that a specific contention has been taken by the Petitioners that the Controlling Authority viz. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central has no jurisdiction to hear the Application. From the impugned orders, I find that this aspect has not been considered at all. The matters therefore need to be remitted back even on this ground. 12. In ordinary course, I would have remitted the matters back to the Controlling Authority instead of the Appellate Authority, as the said orders do not reflect the consideration of the contentions raised by the Petitioners. However, in the interest of workers, to elpedite the adjudication, I deem it appropriate to remit the matters back to the Appellate Authority for considering the Appeals of the Petitioners afresh and in accordance with law. 38. wp 7926.19.doc 13. The Appellate Authority did not entertain the Appeals on account of failure on the part of the Petitioners to produce certificate of Controlling Authority of having deposited amount equal to the amount of gratuity which is required to be deposited while preferring the Appeal as contemplated by Section 7(7) of the said Act. 38. wp 7926.19.doc 13. The Appellate Authority did not entertain the Appeals on account of failure on the part of the Petitioners to produce certificate of Controlling Authority of having deposited amount equal to the amount of gratuity which is required to be deposited while preferring the Appeal as contemplated by Section 7(7) of the said Act. Therefore, instead of remanding the matters back to the Controlling Authority, having regard to the materials on record that the Petitioners in fact have made payments towards the claim of gratuity; which according to the Petitioners is in terms of provisions of the said Act; and further as learned Counsel for the Petitioners on instructions submitted that the Petitioners are willing to deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakhs with the Appellate Authority which will cover the differential amount, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either parties, the Appellate Authority not to insist on pre-deposit and instead hear the Appeal on merits. This arrangement is made to obviate the need to remand the matters to the Controlling Authority. 14. The impugned orders are set aside. Consequentially, recovery certificates and demand notices are set aside. All contentions are kept open. I may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. An amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to be deposited by the Petitioners with the Appellate 38. wp 7926.19.doc Authority i.e. Respondent No.2 within a period of 4 weeks from today. Respondent No.2 is requested to hear and decide the Appeal expeditiously and in any case, within a period of 6 weeks from 28/07/2021. 15. The Petitioners as well as Shri Shaligram appearing on behalf of employees undertake to appear before Respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority on 28/07/2021 at 11.00 a.m. Parties to co-operate with the Appellate Authority and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Petitions are disposed of.