Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank vs Lal Bahadur Singh on 19 July, 2012
W.P.No.13059/2011
19/07/2012
Shri Rohit Sagoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
Challenging an order passed by the controlling authority, exercising jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, this writ petition is filed directly before this Court without taking recourse to the remedy provided under Section 7 of the said Act.
Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection to the effect that when the statute itself provides a provision for filing an appeal against the impugned order, the petition directly before this Court is not maintainable.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable in the Bank, therefore, he has filed this writ petition without taking recourse to the statutory remedy available.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. When the competent authority has exercised the power under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and as the Payment of Gratuity Act itself contemplates a provision of filing an appeal under Section 7, this writ petition before this Court without taking recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal is unsustainable.
Accordingly, objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is upheld. The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Certified Copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd