Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a gratuity dispute under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The respondent workman had retired from Jetpur Navagadh Municipality as a Clerk on 31.07.2024 after allegedly completing 33 years of service, with a last drawn salary of Rs.23,550/-. The Municipality paid Rs.3,94,010/- towards gratuity, but the respondent claimed entitlement to Rs.4,48,356/- and filed Gratuity Case No. 1999 of 2024 before the Controlling Authority, Rajkot, alleging short payment. The Municipality objected, contending that the respondent's initial appointment on 15.02.1991 was on a contractual basis for 90 days and that regular appointment was only from 25.08.1995, thereby justifying the gratuity calculation. The Controlling Authority partly allowed the application, directing payment of Rs.67,933/- with 10% interest. The Municipality's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Rajkot, on 05.08.2025, confirming the Controlling Authority's order. Aggrieved, the Municipality filed the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Gujarat. The core legal issue was whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the orders under the Payment of Gratuity Act given the small amount involved. The petitioner raised various grounds in the memo, but the Court focused on the smallness of the amount (Rs.67,933/-). The Court held that considering the trivial sum, it was not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, and dismissed the petition without entering into the merits, clarifying that the dismissal would not be a precedent. The Municipality was directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, to be disbursed to the respondent workman after verification and through RTGS/NEFT. Thus, the petition was dismissed on the preliminary ground of smallness, without any adjudication on the factual dispute regarding the period of service.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 227 - High Court declined to entertain the petition under its writ jurisdiction due to the smallness of the amount involved (Rs.67,933/-) - Held that in view of the small amount, it is not a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, and the petition is dismissed without entering into merits and without it being a precedent. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when the disputed amount is small?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition without entering into merits, only on the ground of smallness of amount, and clarified that the dismissal shall not be treated as precedent. The Municipality was directed to deposit the awarded amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Smallness of amount
- refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
- not a precedent
