IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that proceedings for payment of gratuity due under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be taken under that Act and not under any other enactment.

ORDER :

These writ petitions are filed seeking following reliefs :

W.P.No.11145 of 2002

“to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of a writ of prohibition:

(i) Restraining the 1st respondent herein from proceeding further in pursuance of order dt.10-5-2002 passed in W.J.No.6 of 2001

(ii) (ii) Declaring that a 1st respondent does not have any jurisdiction to entertain and/or proceed with the consideration of W.J.No.6/2001 as being totally outside the purview of the working Journalist Act.

W.P.No.11326 of 2002

To issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of a writ of prohibition:

(iii) Restraining the 1st respondent herein from proceeding further in pursuance of order dt.10-5-2002 passed in W.J.No.7 of 2001

(iv) (ii) Declaring that a 1st respondent does not have any jurisdiction to entertain and/or proceed with the consideration of W.J.No.7/2001 as being totally outside the purview of the working Journalist Act.

2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivasa Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

Brief facts of the case:

3. Respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions have filed applications before respondent No.1 authority invoking the provisions of working Journalist Act, 1955 claiming gratuity from the petitioner. In the said application they stated that they were employed as Compositor-II Trainee on 17.11.1975 in the petitioner office and their services were confirmed vide letter dated 28.12.1976 w.e.f. 01.11.1976, and their services were suspended by the petitioner on 21.07.1977 on certain charges. Eenadu Press Workers Union approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and filed Civil Appeal No.2662 of 1979 and the same was disposed vide order dated 07.02.1996 directing the petitioner to revoke the suspension order and ordered to take the 25 workmen(including the respondent No.2 in both the cases) into service and with a further direction to pay the wages to the workmen who were not employed during suspension and 50% backwages to the workmen who have been gainfully employed and directed the commissioner of Labour to decide the compensation payable to the workmen, in accordance with the order.

4. Pursuant to the orders of Hon’ble Apex dated 07.02.1996, the petitioner has issued letter on 04.03.1996 revoking the suspension order and directed respondent No.2 in the both the cases to report for duty on or before 15.03.1996. Subsequently, on 07.05.1996 respondents have submitted their resignation. Pursuant to the orders of Labour Commissioner, petitioner herein paid a sum of Rs.1,29,363.95/- towards backwages to respondent No.2 in both the cases. In the above said applications, the petitioner herein has filed counter contending that applications filed by respondents are not maintainable under law and they ought to have filed the applications under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also denied the claim of the unofficial respondents. Respondent No.1 authority clubbed both the applications and passed common order dated 10.05.2002 holding that the applications filed by the unofficial respondents under Section 17(1) of the Act is maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent No.1 authority, having accepted the contentions of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act is not applicable, in view of the availability of remedy as provided under Section 5 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(‘Act, 1972’ for brevity), ought not to have held that the claim of the unofficial respondents under Section 17(1) of 1955 Act is maintainable and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is contrary to the law. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. The Labour Court, Jullundur and others : AIR 1979 SC 1981.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appea