Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chanda Khand Sahakari Shetkari Kharedi Vikri Sanstha, was the employer of respondent No.1, Dattatraya Ramchandra Gaund, who was appointed in 1970 and dismissed on 05.07.1986 for misappropriation of Rs.53,702.50. The dismissal order was challenged before the Labour Court but dismissed in default, attaining finality. The employee was also prosecuted under Section 408 IPC but acquitted on 30.05.1998. On 04.01.2007, the employee applied for gratuity before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was registered as Misc. ULP No. 48 of 2005. The Controlling Authority on 22.01.2009 directed payment of Rs.60,585 with 8% interest per annum. The employer filed this writ petition challenging that order. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the employer had an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act, which was not availed. The employer argued that the order was without jurisdiction due to inordinate delay of 20 years in filing the application. The Court, relying on H. Jayarama Shetty v. The Sangli Bank Ltd, held that the existence of an alternate remedy bars the writ petition, and dismissed the petition on that ground without examining the merits. The Court also noted that the employer could still avail the appeal remedy if it was within limitation or by seeking condonation of delay.
Headnote
A) Gratuity - Alternate Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 7(7) - The employer challenged the order of the Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity without first availing the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act. The Court held that the existence of an alternate remedy bars the writ petition, and the petition was dismissed on this ground alone. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is maintainable when the petitioner has not availed the alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternate remedy
- maintainability of writ petition
- Payment of Gratuity Act
- 1972
- Section 7(7)
- jurisdiction
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 108
WRIT PETITION NO. 1362 OF 2009
Shri R.J.Kankale for Petitioner, Shri A.M.Kadukar for Respondent No.1, Shri K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent No. 2
Chanda Khand Sahakari Shetkari Kharedi Vikri Sanstha
Shri Dattatraya Ramchandra Gaund, The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 at Chandrapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing payment of gratuity.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (employer) sought quashing of the order dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity.
Filing Reason
Employer challenged the order on ground of lack of jurisdiction due to inordinate delay in filing gratuity application.
Previous Decisions
The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 passed an order on 22.01.2009 directing payment of gratuity of Rs.60,585 with 8% interest per annum.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not availed the alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent No.1 argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was not availed, hence the writ petition should be dismissed.
Petitioner argued that the order was without jurisdiction due to delay of 20 years in filing the gratuity application, and thus the bar of alternate remedy should not apply.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging an order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not maintainable when the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act and has not availed it. The existence of an alternate remedy bars the writ petition, and the court will not entertain it on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition, according to him, is, therefore, liable to be rejected on the ground of failure of the petitioner to avail the alternate statutory remedy available to challenge the order impugned in this petition.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy of appeal available under subsection (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Procedural History
The employee was dismissed on 05.07.1986. The dismissal order was challenged before the Labour Court but dismissed in default. The employee was acquitted in criminal case on 30.05.1998. On 04.01.2007, the employee applied for gratuity before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority passed order on 22.01.2009 directing payment of gratuity. The employer filed this writ petition on an unspecified date.
Acts & Sections
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: Section 7(7)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 408
