Payment of Gratuity Act 1972- Section 1(3) 3, 4(3), 5, and 7(4) (a), (b), (c), (d), as amended - Constitution of India 1950 Article 226 - claim of maximum gratuity- gratuity of Rs. 3.5 lacs already received- claims further amount of Rs. 6.5 lakhs- Controlling authority has jurisdiction to examine it- Since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner- High Court under Article 226 will not interfere- Petitioner can approach the appropriate authority- Petition is dismissed.
Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner is under the Statute. The controlling authority which has been appointed in terms of section 3 of the Act, is responsible for adminstration of the Act. Significantly, in addition to the provision of section 4(3), Section 5 of the Actg also contemplates the right of employees to receive better terms of gratuity from an amployer. I, therefore, do not see how the controlling authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 would lack jurisdiction to examine th dispute. The petitioner has shown me no precedent or authority that might persuade me to hold otherwise.
[2011(129)FLR952] Delhi High Court in Writ petition (Civil) no. 7146 of 2010 date 16-3-2011 in P.S. Gupta V/s Union of India.
No comments:
Post a Comment