Violation of natural justice mandates judicial intervention despite alternative remedies being available.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is before this Court, challenging Exhibit P4 order determining gratuity payable by the petitioner to the 4^th respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act , 1972, as also, Exhibit P5 demand notice demanding the payment of the amount, determined in terms of Exhibit P4.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently aged 84 years and at the relevant time, he was aged 82 and the petitioner is suffering from cancer. It is submitted that, the claim raised before the 4^th respondent was listed for consideration before the Controlling Authority on 27.10.2023. It is submitted that, on 20.10.2023, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 request, seeking adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the petitioner was to undergo a major surgery on 30.10.2023 at Amritha Hospital, Ernakulam. It is submitted that, the petitioner had requested that the matter may be taken up for consideration on some day after 15.12.2023. It is submitted that, a reading of Exhibit P4 will indicate that the petitioner was set ex parte on 15.12.2023 and the Controlling Authority proceeded to allow the claim of the 4^th respondent. It is submitted that, the petitioner was not issued with any further notice before Exhibit P4 was passed. It is also submitted that, after Exhibit P5 demand notice was issued, the property of the petitioner has been attached. It is submitted that, the petitioner is willing to provide bank guarantee for the amount awarded by the Controlling Authority and the attachment may be lifted. It is submitted that, the petitioner has a good case on merits before the Controlling Authority.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent vehemently submits that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference with Exhibit P4. It is submitted that, Exhibit P4 is an appealable order and if the petitioner has any grievance against Exhibit P4 order, it is for the petitioner to seek appellate remedy and there is no ground made out for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the appellate remedy. It is submitted that, the 4^th respondent has been deliberately denied gratuity due to him and any further delay in disbursement of gratuity will cause great prejudice and hardship to the 4^th respondent.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, and the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to relief. A reading of Ext.P4 will indicate that the petitioner was set ex parte on 15.12.2023 on the ground that even after receipt of notice, he had not appeared for hearing and had not even responded to the notice. According to the petitioner, when the matter was posted to 27.10.2023, he had submitted Ext.P3 request seeking adjournment on the ground that he was to undergo a major surgery on 30.10.2023 at Amrita Hospital. He had also sought that the matter be taken up on some day after 15.12.2023. Though it is not clear from Ext.P4 as to whether the matter was adjourned to be taken up on 15.12.2023 on the basis of the request in Ext.P3, it is clear that on 15.12.2023, without any further notice to the petitioner, he was declared ex parte, and the claim of the 4^th respondent came to be adjudicated. The petitioner was at the relevant time aged 82, and there is material on record to show that he is suffering from cancer. This, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3, shows that the petitioner was at the very least entitled to a further notice before the matter was decided by the Controlling Authority. The obj