Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P.
Manager, Majlis English Medium School – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Labour Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to controlling authority order under gratuity act. (Para 1) |
| 2. alternate remedy no bar if natural justice violated. (Para 2) |
| 3. writ jurisdiction exceptions despite alternate remedy. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. dismiss writ; pursue appeal reserving rights. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
GOPINATH P., J.
The petitioners are before this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1972 Act’). It is the case of the petitioners that the Controlling Authority failed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners and proceeded to decide the matter in favour of the 2nd respondent, completely ignoring the request of the petitioners for more time to produce further evidence.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that since Ext.P3 order is one issued in violation of principles of natural justice, the availability of an alternate remedy will not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction. He places reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks ,
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not exercisable if effective alternate statutory remedy available, absent exceptional cases like natural justice violation.
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....
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
