JUDGMENT

C. Nagappan, C.J. This writ appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 24835 of 2011. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of this writ appeal are as follows.

The appellant/writ petitioner was working as Chief General Manager (Production) since 17.02.2006 at Rajmahal Area under Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Burla, Sambalpur in the State of Odisha. A memo containing articles of charge was issued to him on 01.10.2007 alleging that there was shortage of stock of coal in Rajmahal Group of Mines which was under his management and enquiry was proposed to be conducted under Rule 29 of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1978 of Coal India Ltd. However, during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the appellant/writ petitioner was allowed to retire on 31.07.2010 (AN) on attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted an application on 21.09.2010 to the Director (Personnel), Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. for payment of gratuity. On the same date he also submitted an application before the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 –cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Rourkela-respondent No.2 for payment of gratuity. The said application was taken on file as application No. 36 (3)/2010 RKL by the respondent No.2. Thereafter, notice was issued on 15.11.2010 by the respondent No.2 calling upon the respondent No.1-Chairman-cum-Managing Director, MCL, Burla to appear on 01.12.2010 for enquiry. Accordingly respondent No.1 submitted reply on 13.12.2010 stating that the payment of gratuity of the appellant has been withheld due to reason that disciplinary case is pending against him. The respondent No.2, after hearing both the parties, in its order dated 15.04.2011 held that the claim of the appellant for payment of gratuity is pre-mature as the disciplinary proceeding is yet to be concluded by the management.

The appellant sought for quashing of the said order of the respondent No.2 by filing W.P.(C) No. 24835 of 2011 stating that the said order was passed by the respondent No.2-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Rourkela without proper application of mind and in violation of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and also contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. Further, the case involves interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, and therefore, finding no other alternative and efficacious remedy he has filed the writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, vide impugned order dated 21.03.2012 held that in view of the existence of an appellate forum against the order passed by the respondent No.2, the writ petition is not maintainable; however, the writ petitioner may file an appeal before the appellate authority within 21 days from the date of passing of the impugned order and in such event the appellate authority shall dispose of the same within a period of three months therefrom.

Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal.

3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Rules made thereunder provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the “Controlling Authority” may within 60 days of the order, prefer an appeal to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) who has been appointed as appellate authority and since the impugned order was passed by the Controlling Authority-cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Rourkela, to avoid confusion and ambiguity, the appellant challenged the order by filing the writ petition. Further, there are no disputed facts involved and the issue involved being purely question of law, directly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh