Alternative Remedy Precludes Writ Petition In Gratuity Dispute: Allahabad HC

Background

Mahendra Singh Kanwal (the petitioner) was employed as a daily wager from 1984 and was soon regularized. After his retirement, he was paid gratuity for the period of regularized service. However, he also demanded gratuity for the service rendered as a daily wager. The Court had asked the respondents to decide on this claim, and consequently, an adverse order was passed against the petitioner.

Kanwal contested this order. He argued that his service from 1984, including his daily wager years, constituted "continuous service" under Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. On this basis, he demanded gratuity for the period. He relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2018 (5) SCC 430), where the court brought out a wide interpretation of 'continuous service' under the Act.

Arguments

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Rajendra Singh Kushwaha, submitted that his continuous service from 1984, notwithstanding the regularization, entitled him to gratuity for the entire period under the Act. He contended that Section 2A of the Act supported his case, and the rejection of his claim violated the principle laid down in Netram Sahu.

The respondents, represented by Shri Rajeeva Kumar Sinha, contended that the petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 7(4)(b) of the Act. This required the resolution of gratuity disputes by the Controlling Authority. It was argued that the writ petition was inappropriate given the established remedy. For this, the respondents relied on Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. (2022) 16 SCC 447 which explained the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies.

Court's Reasoning

First, the court examined whether Kanwal's case fell under the definition of 'continuous service' under Payment of Gratuity Act. It pointed out that determining whether the years of service as a daily wager qualified for gratuity involved factual inquiries. This inquiry was assigned to the Controlling Authority under the Act.

The Court also recalled that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not, normally be exercised when another remedy is available. Citing Commercial Steel Ltd. ((2022) 16 SCC 447) and PHR Invent Educational Society ((2024) 6 SCC 579), the Court concluded that the exceptions to this principle (breach of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice etc) also was not present in the facts. No violation of these principles was proven by the petitioner either.

The court further noted that the Payment of Gratuity Act provides for a complete mechanism for the resolution of gratuity disputes. The Controlling Authority, under section 7, is entrusted with such matters and thus judicial intervention is not required at the first stage. In addition, as no established exceptions were proven by the petitioner either, the court dismissed the writ petition and directed him to pursue statutory remedies under the Act.

Decided On: 03-12-2024

Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:80359

Case Name: Mahendra Singh Kanwal v. State of U.P.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Singh Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents: Shri Rajeeva Kumar Sinha

Click Here To Read/Download The Order