A party has the right to prove its claims in proceedings regarding the payment of gratuity, reinforcing the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT These writ petitions have been filed challenging separate orders issued by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short, ‘the 1972 Act’). Identical issues arise for consideration in both these cases, and they can conveniently be disposed of by common judgment.

2. The party respondents in both Writ Petitions retired from the services of the petitioner company. At the time of their retirement, certain amounts were paid to them, which they claim represent the amount payable on account of leave surrender and bonus. The party respondents initiated proceedings before the controlling authority under the 1972 Act, alleging that the amount of gratuity payable to them had not been paid. The petitioner company did not dispute the entitlement of the party respondents to receive gratuity. The last drawn wages of the party respondents and the period of service of the party respondents, which must be reckoned for the payment of gratuity, were also not disputed. On a consideration of the matter, the Controlling Authority proceeded to determine that the party respondents were entitled to certain amounts towards gratuity.

3. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, it is clear that while the petitioner company asserts that the amounts paid to the party respondents at the time of retirement represent part payment of gratuity, the party respondents contend that the amount so paid represents the amount of leave encashment and bonus payable to them at the time of his retirement.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not permitted to adduce evidence in support of its claim that the amounts paid to the party respondents at the time of their retirement were towards part payment of gratuity and not towards leave encashment and bonus. It is submitted that the Controlling Authority wrongly proceeded to direct that the entire amount of gratuity be paid to the party respondents without taking into account the amounts already paid as gratuity. It is also submitted that, pending these writ petitions, further amounts have also been released to the 2^nd respondent towards gratuity. It is also submitted that, based on directions issued by this Court in other cases, where similar claims for payment of gratuity had been made, the petitioner Company is paying gratuity strictly based on priority, calculated with reference to the date of retirement.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent vehemently contends that it is clear from the document marked as Ext.R2(a) along with the Counter Affidavits filed in both cases, that the amounts paid to the party respondents at the time of retirement were not payments towards gratuity, but were payments towards leave encashment and bonus. It is submitted that Ext.R2(a) (in both cases) will show that the exact amount calculated as leave encashment and bonus alone was paid to the party respondents, and the petitioner cannot contend otherwise. It is also submitted that these writ petitions are not maintainable and the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, in reply, that the practice earlier followed by the petitioner Company was that the leave encashment and bonus would be paid in priority to gratuity. However, on the basis of legal opinion, this practice was stopped, and the amount equivalent to leave encashment and bonus was being paid towards gratuity. It is submitted that documents produced along with the reply affidavit (in both cases) will support this contention.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents,