Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not exercisable if effective alternate statutory remedy available, absent exceptional cases like natural justice violation.

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 2^nd 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 , (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , (2003) 2 SCC 107, in support of his contention. It is submitted that the remedy of appeal is also not an effective remedy, as the petitioners are required to deposit the entire amount of gratuity as a condition for maintaining an appeal. It is submitted that Ext.P3 order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded for fresh consideration of the Controlling Authority.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain this writ petition without exhausting the remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the 1972 Act. It is settled law that the availability of an alternate remedy will not always bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, it is equally well settled that the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 (where an effective alternate remedy is available) only in three well-defined situations i.e. (i) The writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights protected by Part III of the Constitution of India, (ii) where the order is passed without jurisdiction1and (iii) where the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The decisions in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) and Harbanslal Sahnia (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterate this position. In Godrej Sara Lee See Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, (1961) 41 ITR 191 Ltd. v. E&TOCAA, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 it was held:-

“4. Before answering the questions, we feel the urge to say a few words on the exercise of writ powers conferred by article 226 of the Constitution having come across certain orders passed by the High Courts holding writ petitions as "not maintainable" merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ jurisdiction. The power to issue prerogative writs under article 226 is plenary in nature. Any limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution itself. Profitable reference in this regard may be made to article 329 and ordainments of other similarly worded articles in the Constitution. Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs. While it is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy under the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact that the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative rem