The authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be determined by statutory provisions, not consent, particularly when dealing with establishments operating in multiple States.

JUDGMENT :

GOPINATH P., J.

The petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings of the Controlling Authority (the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 Act), determining the claim of the 2^nd respondent for gratuity on account of service rendered with the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is admittedly an establishment having branches in more than one State, the claim of the 2^nd respondent should have been considered by the Controlling Authority appointed by the Central Government and not by the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 2 (a) of the 1972 Act in support of his contention. It is also submitted that even going by the application submitted by the petitioner, he had rendered service in Theni branch of the petitioner, which is situated in Tamil Nadu State, and this itself shows that the matter has to be decided by the Controlling Authority appointed by the Central Government and not by the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that the petitioner had never taken this contention before the 1^st respondent and taking into consideration the view taken by this court in an unreported judgment dated 13-06-2024 in W.P (C) No.11133/2021, the failure to object is fatal to a claim being raised before this court that the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government has no jurisdiction in the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy against the impugned orders, and there is no ground made out for bypassing the alternative remedy by approaching this court directly in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, I am of the view that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 2 (a) of the 1972 Act read with the definition of 'Controlling Authority' under (d) of the 1972 Act and since it is admitted that the petitioner is an establishment having branches in more than one State, the Controlling Authority competent to consider any claim for payment of gratuity by any employee of the petitioner would be the Controlling Authority appointed by the Central Government and not the State Government. The 1^st respondent, who decided the claim of the 2^nd respondent, is admittedly an authority appointed by the State Government and therefore he had no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the 2^nd respondent.

5. The contention raised by the counsel for the respondent in this case, in light of the judgment of this Court in W.P (C) No.11133/2021, is untenable. The said judgment proceeds on its own facts. The judgment cannot be held as laying down any binding precedent. Further, it is settled law that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, and even a party's consent cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists and the jurisdiction to pass a particular order must be found from the provisions of the statute itself. [See Sewalal Daga v. CIT, (1965) 55 ITR 406, Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) (P) Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 90, Suleman Noormohamed v. Umarbhai Janubhai, (1978) 2 SCC 179 and Dodsal (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, (2001) 9 SCC 339]. Even