While dismissing a writ petition filed against an order passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Kerala High Court has held that any provision requiring the deposit of the amount as a condition for maintaining the appeal would not make the appellate remedy illusory.

The petition before the High Court challenged the order of the Controlling Authority passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was the case of the petitioners that the Controlling Authority failed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners and proceeded to decide the matter in favour of the other party (second respondent), completely ignoring the request of the petitioners for more time to produce further evidence.

The Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P. noted, “Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain this writ petition without exhausting the remedy of appeal under Section 7(7) of the 1972 Act.”

“The fact that the petitioners have to deposit the entire amount for maintaining an appeal under Section 7(7) of the 1972 Act is also no ground to hold that the remedy of appeal is not an effective alternative remedy. There are several statutes which require the payment of the amount or a portion of the amount adjudicated by the Original Authority as a condition for maintaining the appeal. The Courts have not held that any such provision requiring the deposit of the amount as a condition for maintaining the appeal makes the appellate remedy illusory”, it added.

Advocate T.T.Rakesh represented the Petitioner, while Government Pleader Resmi Thomas represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioners that the availability of an alternate remedy would not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It was further contended that the remedy of appeal is also not an effective remedy, as the petitioners are required to deposit the entire amount of gratuity as a condition for maintaining an appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench reiterated that the High Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 (where an effective alternate remedy is available) only in three well-defined situations including where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights protected by Part III of the Constitution of India, where the order is passed without jurisdiction and where the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

The Bench was of the view that the petitioners had not made a case for interference with the impugned order, bypassing the alternate remedy. Dealing with the contention that the order was issued in violation of principles of natural justice, the Bench mentioned, “The non-appreciation of a piece of evidence by the Controlling Authority (even if this is true) or the failure to give further time to produce more evidence cannot be said to be a violation of principles of natural justice. If that be so, every order, where a piece of evidence has been ignored or where a request or a petition filed for adducing further evidence is rejected, would be amenable to be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The Bench also made it clear that the apprehension of the petitioners that the Appellate Authority may not consider any additional material that they may produce by itself would not be a reason to hold that the petitioners must be allowed to challenge the impugned order, bypassing the alternate remedy. The Bench thus dismissed the petition while reserving the petitioners’ right to challenge the order by filing an appeal.

Cause Title: The Manager, Majlis English Medium School v. The Deputy Labour Commissioner (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:31138)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates T.T.Rakesh, Jayachandran Nair G., Zakheer Hussain

Respondent: Government Pleader Resmi Thomas

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice Gopinath P

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.