ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure- 2 to the writ petition) passed by the General Manager (P & IR), Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL), Dhanbad-cum-Disciplinary Authority (the respondent no. 4), Dhanbad whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the gratuity payable to him has been forfeited under Section 4(6)(b) (ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short “the Act, 1972”). Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, 1972-cum-Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad in Gratuity Appeal No. 27/2018-A7 whereby the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-I has been affirmed dismissing the said appeal by holding that the petitioner has neither superannuated nor retired from the service of the respondent-company and thus he does not fall under the proviso of Section 4(1) (a) and (b) of the Act, 1972. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to make payment of retiral benefits including the amount of gratuity and earned leave encashment with suitable interest. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was to superannuate from service on 31.10.2015 whereas the second show cause notice was issued to him one day prior to that, i.e. on 30.10.20215, and the order of dismissal was also passed on the said date itself. Thus, the manner in which the petitioner was dismissed from service is completely illegal. 4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the appellate authority-cum- Deputy Chief Labour Commisioner (Central) Dhanbad in Gratuity Appeal No. 27/2018-A7, it appears that the said authority has refrained from entering into the issue with respect to the manner in which the order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner on the ground that the said authority did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. It has also been observed inter alia that there was no denial on the part of the petitioner that he did not commit the alleged misconduct. The said authority has further held that the petitioner does not fall under any of the three eventualities as mentioned in Section 4 of the Act, 1972 viz. It has also been observed inter alia that there was no denial on the part of the petitioner that he did not commit the alleged misconduct. The said authority has further held that the petitioner does not fall under any of the three eventualities as mentioned in Section 4 of the Act, 1972 viz. (a) superannuation, (b) retirement and (c) death or disablement due to accident or disease, so as to hold himself eligible to get payment of gratuity from the employer. 5. I find no infirmity in the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the said authority in Gratuity Appeal No. 27/2018-A7 as it has rightly been held that it did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue with respect to the manner in which the order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner by the respondent no. 4 as admittedly, the said appeal was preferred invoking Section 7(7) of the Act, 1972 assailing the findings dated 29.08.2018 arrived at by the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972-cum-Assistnat Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-I. 6. On perusal of Section 4 of the Act, 1972, it would be evident that the gratuity is admissible to an employee in the cases of superannuation, retirement or resignation from service on the conditions mentioned therein. Since the petitioner was dismissed from service, he could not have been treated to have superannuated or retired from service and consequently was not entitled for payment of gratuity. Thus, it has been rightly held by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the Act, 1972 that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of gratuity under the provisions of the said Act. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. It is however made clear that this order is confined to the issue of gratuity only.