High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Abdul Sattar v. Nagar Nigam Varanasi Thru' Nagarayukta/Mukhya Nagar & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 13162 of 2007  RD-AH 4115 (12 March 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard Sri G.K. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.K. Parekh for the respondents and perused the record
Case of the petitioner is that while working as Bhisti in Nagar Nigam Varanasi, on reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service w.e.f. 30.11.2004. His grievance is that though pension of Rs.2,326/- is being paid to him month by month, but his gratuity has not been paid to him despite repeated entreaties.
Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of instant writ petition.
Normally questions of facts, which requires appraisal of documentary and oral evidence, are not decided in the writ jurisdiction as it is not feasible for this Court to take oral and documentary evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution in every case as to whether non-payment of amount of gratuity suffers from any error of fact. The question of payment of such dues can only be decided after consideration of oral and documentary evidence to be led by the parties.
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a special Act which is a complete Code for redressal of grivance of non-payment of gratuity and interest thereon. The Controlling Authority has full power to determine and take appropriate steps for recovery of the gratuity from the employers.
The petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy against the aforesaid grievance before the competant authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act or Payment of Wages Act, as the case may be, to get the dispute adjudicated on facts by cogent oral and documentary evidence.
It is the consistent view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union-(2005)6 SCC-725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another (2005)107 FLR-729 that in case alternate and efficacious remedy is available it should not be bye-passed and writ petition should not be normally entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has to approach this Court after availing alternate remedy.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.