The entire service period of a Daily Wager qualifies as 'continuous service' for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but writ petitions should not be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy is available.

JUDGMENT :

(Abdul Moin, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Rajeeva Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Learned counsels for the parties contend that the issue involved in all the four writ petitions are same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear all the writ petitions together and they are being decided by way of a common judgement. For convenience, facts of WRIT - A No. 11509 of 2024 are being taken.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 20.9.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for gratuity on the basis of entire length of service rendered as Daily Wager has been rejected.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 as a Daily Wager and has been regularized vide order dated 1.2.2014 and retired on 29.9.2019. Contention is that although the respondents have paid the gratuity to the petitioner but it is only the period of his regular service which has been counted by the respondents for payment of gratuity while the period of his services rendered as daily wager which has not been counted.

5. Despite the petitioner having approached this Court earlier and the Court having required the respondents to decide a representation of the petitioner in this regard said representation has been rejected vide impugned order dated 20.9.2024 and hence the instant petition.

6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2018) 3 SCR 682, to argue that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that entire period of service as rendered by the petitioner would fall within the ambit of being 'continuous service' as provided under Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1972'), consequently the respondents have patently erred in not counting the entire period of service rendered by the petitioner right from the year 1984 till his regularization in the year 2014.

7. On the other hand, Shri Rajeeva Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has taken a preliminary objection that the petitioner has statutory remedy of approaching the controlling authority under the provisions of Section 7(4)(b) of the Act, 1972 inasmuch as considering Section 7(4)(a) of the Act, 1972 as the petitioner is disputing the amount of gratuity payable to him under the Act, 1972 consequently he should approach the controlling authority in this regard.

8. Perusal of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 would indicate that sub-section 4(a) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 categorically provides that if there is any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the Act, 1972 or as to the admissibility of any claim etc., then the employer or the employee or any other person raising a dispute may give an application to the controlling authority for deciding the dispute.

9. In the instant case, the dispute is that although the service rendered by the petitioner as daily wager is covered under the provisions of Section 2A of the Act, 1972 yet the respondents have not considered the said service while giving the gratuity to the petitioner by treating his service only for the period between 2014 to 2019 i.e. the period of service rendered by the petitioner after his regularization till his retirement. Thus, it is apparent that there is a dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner which can validly be raised before the controlling authority under the provisions of the Act, 1972.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as it is clearly apparent from perusal of Section 2A of the Act, 1972 read with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Netram (supra) that his entire period of service would fall within the ambit of being continuous service and co