Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDUL SATTAR versus NAGAR NIGAM VARANASI THRU' NAGARAYUKTA/MUKHYA NAGAR & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Abdul Sattar v. Nagar Nigam Varanasi Thru' Nagarayukta/Mukhya Nagar & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 13162 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4115 (12 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

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.

Dated 12.3.2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.