Back
G. NARENDAR, HARINATH N.
Chairman – Appellant
Versus
N. Suryanarayana Sastry – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. NARENDAR, J.
1. When these Appeals were listed yesterday i.e. 07.05.2024, they were heard. It was pointed out that the Writ Petitions themselves are not maintainable. A copy of the judgment, dated 22.02.2024 and rendered in W.A. No. 102 of 2024, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court was furnished to the Respondents Counsel. The Coordinate Bench while disposing of the said Appeal has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.S. Rana v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, (2006) 11 SCC 634. Learned Counsel for the Respondents had sought time on the ground that he would secure instructions.
2. When these Appeals are called today, initially, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondents. Later, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, came and prays time to examine the said judgment of the Coordinate Bench rendered in W.A. No. 102 of 2024, dated 22.02.2024.
3. The relevant portion of the said judgment in W.A. No. 102 of 2024, dated 22.02.2024, rendered by the Coordinate Bench reads as follows:
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists under the Payment of Gratuity Act for resolving gratuity disputes.
The court ruled that the computation of gratuity dues is under the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority, making a Writ Petition not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists.
The exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in entertaining a writ petition, the absence of pension provision for a retired employee, and the applicability of cited judg....
The Payment of Gratuity Act allows claims for both statutory and contractual gratuity to be adjudicated under the same authority, ensuring employee rights are protected.
The availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy under the statutory provisions and the non-mandatory nature of the requirement of filing a written application for gratuity under Rule 7 of the....
Point of Law : It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of aforesaid Article 30....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
