ORDER : The petitioners/Verma Industrial Private Limited and IBC Knowledge Park Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘1st Company and 2nd Company respectively’ for short) have called in question the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short) directing payment of interest against the 1st petitioner and payment of gratuity in respect of the 2nd petitioner. For the sake of convenience the petitioners will be referred to as petitioners and the respondent as the workman in this order. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present common writ petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as under : The 1st respondent/workman was an employee of petitioners’ companies who joined the services of the 1st petitioner on 2-08-1971 and was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 20th October, 2002 after rendering about 31 years of service, by which point of time., the workman joined the 2nd petitioner/Company as a fresh candidate and worked there up to 15-01-2015. After completion of the aforesaid services, the petitioner gave a representation demanding payment of gratuity amount from the hands of the 1st petitioner company for 31 years of service that he had rendered. In reply the 1st petitioner/Company paid gratuity on 2-06-2015 sans payment of interest for the delayed payment, after which the workman approached the Controlling Authority under the Act demanding interest on delayed payment of gratuity in so far as it pertained to the 1st petitioner/Company and gratuity in so far as it pertained to the 2nd petitioner/company. The Controlling Authority by his order dated 4-09-2017 directed both the companies to pay Rs.3,94,615/- along with 10% interest for two distinct issues one being interest on delayed payment by the 1st petitioner and gratuity along with interest by the 2nd petitioner. It is these orders that are called in question by the companies before this Court. 3. Heard Sri.Arjun Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. Sri Arjun Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that though the workman retired from the company and was relieved on 20-10-2002 had raised a claim for payment of gratuity by giving an application only on 30-05-2015 and immediately thereafter on 2-06-2015 gratuity was dispensed. 4. Sri Arjun Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that though the workman retired from the company and was relieved on 20-10-2002 had raised a claim for payment of gratuity by giving an application only on 30-05-2015 and immediately thereafter on 2-06-2015 gratuity was dispensed. Therefore, he would submit that there can be no interest which can be saddled upon the 1st petitioner as gratuity is paid immediately after the demand is raised. 5. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner/Company is concerned, he would accept that gratuity had to be paid. But, again contends that payment of interest is not warranted even in the said case as the workman had never demanded gratuity. For the first time before the Controlling Authority a demand was made by the workman. He would place reliance on a judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.31761 of 2011 disposed of on 4.06.2012. 6. On the other hand, Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for the workman would contend that payment of gratuity does not depend upon the sweet will of the employer but is a right accrued to the workman for the services that he has rendered to be paid immediately after cessation of service, withholding the same can only be in accordance with law. 7. The learned counsel would submit that it is the duty of the employer to immediately dispense all terminal benefits to an employee who ceases to be so on attaining the age of superannuation and gratuity being a terminal benefit, the same cannot be denied to be paid immediately and would place reliance upon CHAMPARAN SUGAR COMPMANY LIMITED v. JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY reported in 1986 SCC OnLine Pat.228; MOHANLAL v. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, BHOPAL reported in 1990 SCC OnLine MP 166 and RAJENDRA DEVA v. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ACCOUNTS), KANPUR-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY reported in 1999 SCC OnLine All 108. 8. Having considered the rival submissions the only issue that falls for my consideration is, whether payment of gratuity would depend upon an application being made by the employee or the employer is duty bound to dispense gratuity immediately after cessation of service of an employee. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. 8. Having considered the rival submissions the only issue that falls for my consideration is, whether payment of gratuity would depend upon an application being made by the employee or the employer is duty bound to dispense gratuity immediately after cessation of service of an employee. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The workman ceases to be an employee of the 1st petitioner/company on 20th October 2002 after serving the 1st petitioner company from 02.08.1971 up to 20.10.2002 and later entered into service of the 2nd petitioner company on 15.01.2008 and remained its employee up to 15.01.2015. Therefore, there are two spells of claim one for interest and the other for gratuity along with interest. Though the workman retired on 20.10.2002 with the 1st petitioner company, no gratuity was paid and was only when the workman represented before the 1st petitioner demanding gratuity the same was paid on 2.06.2015. Therefore, there is a delay in paying gratuity to the workman. In so far as the 2nd petitioner company is concerned, though the workman was an employee of the 2nd petitioner from 15.01.2008 up to 15.01.2015 no gratuity was paid. 10. The Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority by the impugned orders have saddled the interest on the 1st petitioner company for the delay payment for 13 years of delay in making payment of gratuity and interest on the 2nd petitioner company as no gratuity was paid by the 2nd petitioner on cessation of employment. It is now germane to consider certain provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, that are necessary for decision making in the lis: “4. It is now germane to consider certain provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, that are necessary for decision making in the lis: “4. Payment of gratuity.- (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, - (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: (Emphasis applied) Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he, was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. (2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned: Provided that in the case of a piecerated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account.: Provided further that in the case of an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is riot so employed throughout the year, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days wages for each season. Explanation: In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen. Explanation: In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen. (3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed three lakhs and fifty thousand rupees. (4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), - (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited – (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.” 11. The afore-extracted provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act makes it unmistakably clear that gratuity shall be paid to an employee on his superannuation or on his retirement or resignation inter alia. Section 7 which deals with Determination of Amount of Gratuity reads as follows: “7. Determination of the amount of gratuity.—(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. Determination of the amount of gratuity.—(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. [(3) The employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. (3-A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.] (4)(a) If there is any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under this Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, the employer shall deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity. Explanation.—[***] [(b) Where there is a dispute with regard to any matter or matters specified in clause (a), the employer or employee or any other person raising the dispute may make an application to the controlling authority for deciding the dispute.] [(c) The controlling authority shall, after due inquiry and after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the matter or matters in dispute and if, as a result of such inquiry any amount is found to be payable to the employee, the controlling authority shall direct the employer to pay such amount or, as the case may be, such amount as reduced by the amount already deposited by the employer.] [(d)] The controlling authority shall pay the amount deposited, including the excess amount, if any, deposited by the employer, to the person entitled thereto. [(e)] As soon as may be after a deposit is made under clause (a), the controlling authority shall pay the amount of the deposit— (i) to the applicant where he is the employee; or (ii) where the applicant is not the employee, to the [nominee or, as the case may be, the guardian of such nominee or] heir of the employee if the controlling authority is satisfied that there is no dispute as to the right of the applicant to receive the amount of gratuity. (5) For the purpose of conducting an inquiry under sub-section (4), the controlling authority shall have the same powers as are vested in a court, while trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. (6) Any inquiry under this section shall be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of Section 196, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). (6) Any inquiry under this section shall be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of Section 196, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). (7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4), may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf: Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period by a further period of sixty days. [Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under subsection (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.] (8) The appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, confirm, modify or reverse the decision of the controlling authority.” Section 8 which deals with Recovery of Gratuity reads as follows: “8. Recovery of gratuity.—If the amount of gratuity payable under this Act is not paid by the employer, within the prescribed time, to the person entitled thereto, the controlling authority shall, on an application made to it in this behalf by the aggrieved person, issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall recover the same, together with compound interest thereon [at such rate as the Central Government may, by notification, specify], from the date of expiry of the prescribed time, as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled thereto. [Provided that the controlling authority shall, before issuing a certificate under this section, give the employer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the issue of such certificate: Provided further that the amount of interest payable under this section shall, in no case exceed the amount of gratuity payable under this Act.] (Emphasis applied) 12. [Provided that the controlling authority shall, before issuing a certificate under this section, give the employer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the issue of such certificate: Provided further that the amount of interest payable under this section shall, in no case exceed the amount of gratuity payable under this Act.] (Emphasis applied) 12. A bare reading of Section 7(1) of the Act which determines the amount of gratuity that a person is eligible under the Payment of Gratuity Act or any person authorized in writing to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer. Therefore, subsection (1) of Section 7 poses a duty upon the person who is eligible for gratuity to send a written application to the employer. Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 mandates that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall whether an application referred to in sub-Section (1) has been made or not determine the amount of gratuity and give a notice in writing to the persons to whom gratuity is payable and also to the Controlling Authority specifying the gratuity so determined which would clearly mean that even if no such written application is made by the employee seeking gratuity under sub-section (1) of Section 7 it is the duty of the employer to determine the gratuity and give a notice in writing to the person whom the gratuity is payable. 13. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 provides that the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable meaning thereby that if the determination of the amount as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 7 is made, the amount of gratuity has to be paid within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Proviso to subsection (3-A) absolves the employer from payment of any interest on delayed payment of gratuity only when there is a fault on the part of the employee and the employer has obtained permission of the Controlling Authority in writing for such delayed payment. 14. A conjoint reading of the afore-extracted provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act would leave none in doubt that gratuity is payable to an employee within 30 days from the date on which cessation of employment happened in the mode indicated under Section 4 failing which the employee is entitled to interest on delayed payment of gratuity. 14. A conjoint reading of the afore-extracted provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act would leave none in doubt that gratuity is payable to an employee within 30 days from the date on which cessation of employment happened in the mode indicated under Section 4 failing which the employee is entitled to interest on delayed payment of gratuity. In my considered view the Act nowhere casts an obligation that gratuity shall be paid to an employee only on an application to be made by the employee seeking such gratuity. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 clearly mandates that whether application for gratuity is filed by an employee or not, the employer is under obligation to settle gratuity within 30 days of cessation of service of the employee. The Apex Court in the case of H.GANGAHANUME GOWDA v. KARNATKA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED reported in (2003) 3 SCC 40 held as follows:- “6. In order to appreciate the above contentions urged, it is necessary to notice the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “the Act”) to the extent they are relevant. They are extracted below: “7. Determination of the amount of gratuity.—(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorized, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. (2) As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. *** (3-A) If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in subsection (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. *** 8. Recovery of gratuity.—If the amount of gratuity payable under this Act is not paid by the employer, within the prescribed time, to the person entitled thereto, the controlling authority shall, on an application made to it in this behalf by the aggrieved person, issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, who shall recover the same, together with compound interest thereon at such rate as the Central Government may, by notification, specify, from the date of expiry of the prescribed time, as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled thereto: Provided that the controlling authority shall, before issuing a certificate under this section, give the employer a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the issue of such certificate: Provided further that the amount of interest payable under this section shall, in no case exceed the amount of gratuity payable under this Act.” 7. It is evident from Section 7(2) that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer, whether any application has been made or not, is obliged to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity. Under Section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under Section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under sub-section (3-A) of Section 7, if the amount of gratuity is not paid by the employer within the period specified in subsection (3), he shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits; provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. From the provisions made in Section 7, a clear command can be seen mandating the employer to pay the gratuity within the specified time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. No discretion is available to exempt or relieve the employer from payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be. However, under the proviso to Section 7(3-A), no interest shall be payable if delay in payment of gratuity is due to the fault of the employee and further condition that the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. Under Section 8, provision is made for recovery of gratuity payable under the Act, if not paid by the employer within the prescribed time. The Collector shall recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest thereon as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled. A penal provision is also made in Section 9 for non-payment of gratuity. Payment of gratuity with or without interest, as the case may be, does not lie in the domain of discretion but it is a statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly given in a social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinarily denied. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest was the view taken in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [ (1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278 : (1985) 50 FLR 145 ] . Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest was the view taken in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [ (1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278 : (1985) 50 FLR 145 ] . Earlier there was no provision for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Sub-section (3-A) was added to Section 7 by an amendment, which came into force with effect from 1-10-1987. In the case of Charan Singh v. Birla Textiles [ (1988) 4 SCC 212 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 947 : (1988) 57 FLR 543 ] this aspect was noticed in the following words: (SCC pp. 214- 15, para 4) “4. There was no provision in the Act for payment of interest when the same was quantified by the controlling authority and before the Collector was approached for its realization. In fact, it is on the acceptance of the position that there was a lacuna in the law that Act 22 of 1987 brought about the incorporation of sub-section (3-A) in Section 7. That provision has prospective application.” (Emphasis applied) 15. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that gratuity becomes payable to an employee only on application being made to the employer becomes a figment of imagination as the mandate of law and the judgment considering such mandate by the Apex Court in the judgment of Gangahanume Gowda (supra) is otherwise. 16. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and others in W.P.No.31761/2011 rendered on 4.06.2012 is inapplicable to the facts of the case on hand as the issue that fell for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench is as follows: “7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, I am of the considered view that following points arise for my consideration: (1) Whether the Controlling Authority was justified in entertaining the claim lodged by the 3rd respondent workman on 26-04-2005 after a period of six years from the date of attaining superannuation and appellate authority was right in affirming order of Controlling Authority? (2) What order?” This Court was answering whether the Controlling Authority was justified in entertaining the claim lodged by the workman after a period of six years from the date of his superannuation. The case on hand is not with regard to the delay in the workman approaching the Controlling Authority. But, the delay by the 1st petitioner company in not paying gratuity on the cessation of service of the workman concerned , is the issue here. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel of a co-ordinate Bench interpreting Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules is inapplicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is also trite that rules which prescribe procedure cannot override the Act. The Act casts an obligation on the employer to pay gratuity within 30 days of the employee’s cessation of service which cannot be taken away by the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules for claiming gratuity. 17. Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the workman are apposite to be considered. The Full Bench of Patna High Court in Champaran Sugar Company, Ltd. v. Joint Labour Commissioner reported in 1986 SCC OnLine Pat 228 has held as follows: “13. Having thus laid the duty at the door of the employer to pay gratuity within the prescribed time, S. 8 also provides the sanction for such payment and the methodology for its recovery with interest for the delay in payment caused by the default of the employer. The Act is itself specific that the controlling authority in such cases would recover the gratuity with compound interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum by the coercive process of the issuance of a certificate recoverable as arrears of land revenue by the Collector. Not only that, the terminus for calculating the same is fixed at the date of the expiry of the prescribed time. 14. It would seem somewhat plain from the above that the payment of interest is the mandate of the law itself and not dependent on an express claim by the employee therefor. Herein the employee's right to interest accrues from the failure of the employer to perform his statutory duty to tender and pay gratuity and not from any formal demand therefore by the employee. Herein the employee's right to interest accrues from the failure of the employer to perform his statutory duty to tender and pay gratuity and not from any formal demand therefore by the employee. Similarly, the liability to pay interest does not stem from the certificate of the controlling authority but from the default in the performance of his duty by the employer. The certificate proceedings are a procedural mode of recovery and not the source of a substantive right to interest. Herein, a patent misconception may perhaps be cleared. 19. To sum up on this aspect, answer to the second question is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that the right to interest on delayed payment of gratuity is statutory and the same can be granted in the absence of an express claim therefor in the application of the employee before the controller.” (Emphasis applied) A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohanlal v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Bhopal reported in 1990 SCC OnLine MP 166 has held as follows: “5-A. We have considered it unnecessary to extract Rule 10 and to deal with contention of Shri Dubey, who appears for respondent No. 3/employer, that there being conflict between the English and Hindi versions in view of section 3 of the M.P. Official Language Act, 1957 the Hindi version shall prevail. Shortly put, Shri Dubey contended that according to Hindi version limitation of 90 days is prescribed for making an application before the Controlling Authority and only on sufficient cause being shown delay is made condonable. Thus, he contended, Appellate Authority has rightly held the default of employee in non furnishing annexures along with the claim-petition to be fatal as those were filed after two years. We have seen no merit in Shri Dubey's contention for the short reason that the Controlling Authority having the jurisdiction to condone delay by accepting the annexures beyond time it shall be deemed to have exercised its powers in that regard. In any case, in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority no reasons are given to find fault with the exercise of his discretionary powers by the Controlling Authority. Merely because belated filing was objected to, the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority was not affected; and its power to condone the delay was not taken away. In any case, in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority no reasons are given to find fault with the exercise of his discretionary powers by the Controlling Authority. Merely because belated filing was objected to, the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority was not affected; and its power to condone the delay was not taken away. It is wrongly held in the impugned order that Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to accept belated filing of the annexures as that holding ignores vesting by the relevant Rule itself jurisdiction in Controlling Authority to act to the contrary and accept a belated application or for that matter belated filing of annexures to complete an application filed within time. 6. We revert to the other ground which prevailed with the Appellate Authority in holding that the claim-petition was not maintainable because application filed with the employer by the employee under Rule 7(1) was time barred. That has a short and also a long answer. Sub- Rule (5) of Rule 7 effectively rebuffs that contention. It provides that on the sole ground that gratuity was claimed late and application was not made within specified period to the employer the claim shall not be treated invalid. However, the same provision also contemplates that if there is any dispute and if there is any controversy in regard to belated application that shall be resolved by the Controlling Authority. Evidently, for the first time in appeal, the ground was urged to deprive the Controlling Authority of its jurisdiction envisaged under Rule 7(5) to deal and decide the controversy. That apart, it has been rightly urged by Shri Lahoti, appearing for the petitioner/employee, that neither section 7(1) nor Rule 7(1) is mandatory. That is made clear not only by sub-rule (5) of Rule 7, but by the other parts of the parent provisions contained in section 7. Sub-section (2) makes it employer's duty to determine the amount of gratuity and to give notice in writing to the employee of the gratuity payable “whether an application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made or not”. Sub-section (3) obligates the employer to arrange payment of the gratuity within the time prescribed and by sub-rule (4) he is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him against gratuity. Sub-section (3) obligates the employer to arrange payment of the gratuity within the time prescribed and by sub-rule (4) he is required to deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him against gratuity. It is noteworthy that neither clause (a) of sub-section (4) nor the explanation appended to it prescribes any period of limitation for making application to the Controlling Authority for deciding dispute of non-payment of gratuity. 7. For the reasons aforesaid we are of the view that the two new grounds which were urged in appeal were themselves untenable in law and, therefore, the Appellate Authority acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority on those grounds holding the claim petition filed on 30-7-1976 by the petitioner/employee to be not maintainable and time barred. A learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajendra Deva v. Additional Labour Commissioner (Accounts), Kanpur-cum- Appellate Authority reported in 1999 SCC OnLine All 108 has held as follows: Send Mail “5. It was also submitted by the petitioner that the failure of the employer to discharge the obligation cast upon it by Sub-sec. (2) rendered itself liable to pay interest on the amount of gratuity till the date on which the amount of gratuity was actually paid. Sri Piyush Bhargava submitted that a sum of Rs. 16,615 was deposited by the petitioner with the appellate authority on 17 March, 1993, and therefore, the employer was not liable to pay interest after 17 March, 1993. The submission made by the learned counsel cannot be countenanced. Subsection (2) of S. 7 of the Act of 1972 provides that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer shall, whether an application referred to in Sub-sec. (1) has been made or not “determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined”. Sub-section (3) of S. 7 of the Act in 1972 provides that the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. Sub-section (3) of S. 7 of the Act in 1972 provides that the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable. Sub-section (3- A) of S. 7 of the Act of 1972 fastens the liability to pay interest in the event of failure to discharge the obligation cast upon the employer under Sub-sec. (3-A) of S. 7 of Act of 1972. Sub-section (3-A) of S. 7 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: “(3-A) If the amount of gratuity payable under Sub-sec. (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in Sub-sec. (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground” 6. It is evident from Sub-sec. (3-A) of S. 7 of the Act, extracted above, that the employer is liable to pay simple interest at the prescribed rate from the date on which the gravity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid. The deposit of the amount with the appellate authority would not absolve the employer of its liability to pay interest once it is established that the employer has failed to discharge the obligation cast upon it by Sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 7 of the Act. In the instant case, the employer failed to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the petitioner and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity so determined, as visualised by Subsec. (2) of S. 7 of the Act. It further failed to arrange the payment of gratuity within thirty days from the date it became payable to the petitioner. The deposit of the amount with the appellate authority after the order passed by the controlling authority would not absolve the employer of its liability to pay interest as visualised by Sub-sec. (2) of S. 7 of the Act. It further failed to arrange the payment of gratuity within thirty days from the date it became payable to the petitioner. The deposit of the amount with the appellate authority after the order passed by the controlling authority would not absolve the employer of its liability to pay interest as visualised by Sub-sec. (3-A) of S. 7 of the Act. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to get interest till the date of actual payment of gratuity to him. He is also entitled to cost quantified at Rs. 2,000. 7. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000. The appellate order, dated 30 December, 1995, is quahsed. The petitioner is held entitled to interest at the prescribed rate till the date of actual payment. 18. The Act, the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, and various High Courts - Full Bench, Division Bench, a judgment of the learned Single Judge (supra) interpreting the Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon the employee filing an application before the employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessation of employment in terms of Section 4 of the Act, irrespective of the demand. 19. Therefore the plea that the petitioner, as advanced, that gratuity is payable only on an application being made before the employer placing reliance upon Rule 7 of the Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 deserves to be rejected and is rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no good ground that would warrant my interference with the orders impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit, is dismissed. No costs.