Allahabad High Court Highlights Exceptions to Alternate Remedy Rule in Gratuity Disputes Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

The Allahabad High Court while hearing 2024 AHC-LKO:80359 observes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of alternate remedy. The exceptions include (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of natural justice. Further, an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of writ petition under Article 226. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) an excess of jurisdiction; (iii) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. The present case involved the employer only considering the regular service of the petitioner for the purposes of calculation of gratuity while ignoring the service rendered by petitioner as a daily wager, due to which the amount of gratuity paid to the petitioner is disputed and such dispute can be validly raised before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the “Act of 1972”). Considering the alternate remedy available, the Allahabad High Court disposed of the petition to pursue the remedy available under the Act of 1972.