JUDGMENT

V.K. Birla, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioners-Bank and Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. Learned ASGI has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. This bunch of petitions involves identical controversy and therefore, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition being Writ-C No. 2340 of 2021 is being taken up as the leading case.

3. The petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.1.2020 and Form (R) notice for payment of gratuity dated 5.2.2020 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)/Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Case No. A-48 (38) of 2018 (Shri Dilip Kumar Shukla v. The Chairman, Purvanchal Bank and another).

4. By the impugned order, the Controlling Authority (respondent No. 2 herein) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') allowed the claim/application filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 under Rule 10 (i) of the Act read with section 7(4) of the Act after condoning the delay in filing the said application.

5. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the petitioner-Bank has efficacious alternative statutory remedy under section 7 (7) of the Act before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, present petition is not maintainable. He submits that once the statutory alternative remedy is available under the aforesaid provisions, there is no occasion to entertain present petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy itself.

6. Replying the preliminary objection, Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel submits that the order passed by the Controlling Authority is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, availability of statutory remedy would not be a bar in the present case. He submits that sending the matter from one Authority, who has committed jurisdictional error, to another Authority under the same Act would not, in any case, be efficacious alternative remedy and therefore, present petition is maintainable. He submits that the preliminary objection that the order passed by the Controlling Authority is appealable under the Act, was raised in Writ-C No. 20437 of 2018 (Purvanchal Bank, Head Office Mohiddidpur and another v. Chief Labour Commissioner and others) and was rejected by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court on the ground that any order, which is bereft of reasons or findings on the facts and circumstances brought before the statutory Authority, cannot withstand the test or scrutiny and cannot be allowed to survive merely on the ground that the said order is appealable before a higher Authority. He further submits that the services of the respondent No. 3 are governed by Service Regulations, namely, Purvanchal Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') framed under section 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the RRB Act). He submits that Regulation 72 of the Regulations governs the gratuity payable to an officer or an employee. Drawing attention to various provisions of the Act as well as of the Regulations, he submits that in the Regulations, a distinction has been drawn in case of an 'officer' and that of an 'employee', therefore, in the present case, the gratuity is to be calculated as per the Regulations as applicable to an officer. He pointed out that in the present litigation, all are officers of the Bank. He submits that second proviso to clause 3 of Regulation 72 of the Regulations uses the expression "last pay drawn" applicable to the 'officer' and therefore, the said provision covers the same. He submits that the third proviso as applicable to a