The main legal point established in the judgment is the overriding effect of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 over any settlement, award, or contract inconsistent with the Act, and the entitlement of an employee to claim gratuity under the Act despite any settlement or contract.

C.L. SONI, J.

1. By the present petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Bhuj Municipality has straightway challenged the orders dated 18/06/2016 passed by the Controlling Authority on different applications preferred by the respondent no. 1 of each petition under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’) without availing of statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 7(7) of the Act.

2. It is settled law that when the statutory remedy of appeal is available, the petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be entertained, unless extraordinary circumstances are made out to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, straightway to challenge the order of the Controlling Authority as the claim for payment of gratuity made by the respondent no. 1, is based on the settlement entered between the petitioner-Municipality and its employees under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the I.D. Act’) and therefore, the respondent no. 1 could not have filed the application for payment of gratuity before the Controlling Authority, and the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications of the respondent no. 1.

4. The Court, however finds that as recorded in the impugned order, the respondent no. 1 have made applications under the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming difference of gratuity within maximum limit of Rs. 10 lac as provided under the Act. It cannot be disputed that the respondent in each of the petition retired after the Amendment for increasing maximum limit for payment of gratuity upto Rs. 10 lac was brought into force in the year 2010. The Court therefore finds that the Controlling Authority has jurisdiction to entertain the applications of the respondent no. 1 claiming difference of gratuity. Learned advocate Mr. Mankad then submitted that group of petition being Special Civil Application No. 13614 of 2016 and allied matters are filed after availing the statutory remedy of the appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act, and on the same contentions raised in the said group of petitions, the impugned orders of the Controlling Authority are being assailed in the present group of petitions and therefore the present petitions are directly filed under Article 226 of this Court against the order of the Controlling Authority.

5. The Court has rejected the above referred group of the petition today since, the same contentions are canvassed in the present group of petitions, the Court finds that for the reasons given in the above said group of the matters, the present petitions are required to be rejected.

6. In the said group of the petitions, this Court has held in paragraph Nos. 6 to 10 as under:-

6. The Court, having heard learned advocate Mr. Mankad for the petitioner and having perused the impugned orders finds that as observed by the authorities below, the respondent no. 1 preferred applications for payment of gratuity under the Act. As stated in the order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner opposed the applications on the ground that the GCSR apply to the respondent no. 1 and since the 5th pay commission was sanctioned by the State Government for the petitioner, the gratuity could be paid to the respondent no. 1 within maximum limit of Rs. 3 lac as provided in the Rules and not within the maximum limit of Rs. 10 lac under the Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 1 retired from service after the amendment of 2010 providing for maximum gratuity of Rs. 10 lac was brought into force. Therefore under the Act, the respondent no. 1 was entitled to claim of gratuity within maximum limit of Rs. 10 lac. However by Draft Amendment, the petitioner has contended that the respondent no. 1 demanded