High Court Advises Alternative Statutory Remedy for Gratuity Dispute in Daily Wager's Case

The petitioners, including Mahendra Singh Kanwal, Rajeev Sharma, Abdul Aziz, and Krishan Kumar Rastogi, had challenged orders denying their claim for gratuity based on the entire length of service, including periods served as daily wagers. The case was presided over by Justice Abdul Moin.

The petitioners were employed as daily wagers from 1984 before being regularized in 2014. They retired in 2019 and subsequently received gratuity, calculated only for their regularized service period. This exclusion of their earlier service as daily wagers formed the crux of their challenge. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2018), the petitioners contended that their service as daily wagers qualified as "continuous service" under Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The respondents, represented by counsel Rajeeva Kumar Sinha, argued that the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 7(4)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. They asserted that disputes regarding gratuity amounts must be addressed by the Controlling Authority under the Act, not through writ petitions.

Justice Abdul Moin concurred, emphasizing the established principle that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are maintainable only in exceptional circumstances. Citing recent Supreme Court rulings, the court reiterated that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptions such as violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, or jurisdictional excess are evident.

In this instance, the court found no such exceptions applicable. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, leaving the petitioners the option to pursue statutory remedies. The court directed that any application filed by the petitioners under the Payment of Gratuity Act should be resolved within three months.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's preference for resolving disputes through statutory mechanisms before invoking writ jurisdiction. It reaffirms the self-imposed restraint exercised by courts in matters where alternate remedies are available, ensuring compliance with the legislative intent.