JUDGMENT : This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 29-4-2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Gratuity Payment Act, 1972, whereby the petitioner’s appeal No.3/2021 has been dismissed and affirmed the order dated 20-12-2019 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Payment Act Karauli (hereafter `the Authority’) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was to pay Rs.71,388/- to respondent along with simple interest from 8-2-2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application before the authority claiming that he worked in employment of petitioner from 1-3-1989 to 1-11-2011 for about 23 years for monthly salary of Rs.5380/- and therefore filed the application claiming gratuity Rs.62,100/- along with interest. On service, the petitioner filed reply and submitted that the respondent was not his regular employee, and since he was a part time employee he was not entitled to any gratuity. The Authority after framing issues considered affidavit of respondent and documents Ex.4 to Ex.11, which were details of PF account for certain years, Ex.12 and 13 the Identity card of respondent and finding that the petitioner did not file any affidavit nor cross examined the respondent, came to the conclusion vide order dated 20-12-2019, that respondent had worked for 23 years and held the respondent entitled to get gratuity Rs.71,388/- with simple interest from 8-2-2013. The amount of gratuity was to be paid within thirty days, failing which the amount was to carry compound interest. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20-12-2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has finding no force in the appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority indicates that the it has properly considered all grounds raised by the petitioner. With regard to no continue service of respondent, it has been observed that since employer possess all records, it was his duty to produce relevant documents but he did not do so, therefore the documents produced by respondent have been rightly relied upon. With regard to no continue service of respondent, it has been observed that since employer possess all records, it was his duty to produce relevant documents but he did not do so, therefore the documents produced by respondent have been rightly relied upon. With regard to delay in filing application by respondent it has been observed that in case of any dispute regarding gratuity the employer is duty bound to deposit the due gratuity with the authorised authority. With regard to “no instruction” pleaded by petitioner’s counsel and no notice was issued to petitioner, the Appellate Authority held that despite no instruction pleaded by the counsel the Authority provided an opportunity to the counsel for cross examining the respondent, but he did not do so, thereafter the said opportunity was closed. It was also found by the Appellate Authority that several opportunities were given to petitioner right from 23-5-2014 till 20-12-2019 when no instruction was pleaded by counsel for petitioner, and thereafter the application was decided on 20-12-2019. In such circumstances the Appellate Authority did not find any merit in the appeal filed by petitioner and dismissing the same has affirmed the order passed by the Authority. 6. For reasons discussed herein above, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and it has rightly affirmed the order passed by the Authority. Counsel for petitioner has not able to point out any illegality in impugned orders. There is no force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. 7. Counsel for the petitioner states at bar that the amount of gratuity as ordered to be paid in the impugned order has already been deposited, though under protest. The amount of gratuity as directed by the Authority and deposited by petitioner be disbursed to respondent. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.