STATE OF U P Vs. RAM CHANDRA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. S. Sharma, the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and Sri dhananjai Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders dated February 15, 2005 and June 27, 2005 passed by the controlling authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The facts as culled out from the record is, that respondent no. 1 was appointed as a work charged employee in the petitioner's establishment on september 1, 1968 and his service was regularized w. e. f. December 31, 1993. The petitioner retired from the service on August 31, 2001 and at that time, an amount of Rs. 17,160/-was paid as gratuity, taking the period of service from December 31, 1993 till the date of his retirement dated August 31, 2001. The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the period from 1968 to 1993, i. e. , the period when he had started working as a work charged employee, filed an application, for computation of the gratuity, before the controlling authority under the Payment of gratuity Act. The controlling authority, after considering the matter, passed an order dated february 15, 2005 holding that, the period from september 1, 1968 to December 31, 1993 was also to be included as period spent in service while computing the gratuity and, accordingly directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs. 57,412/- along with interest @ 10% p. a. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed a review application which was also rejected by an order dated June 27, 2005. The petitioner thereafter has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 7 (7) of the Act. No doubt the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal but considering the facts and the circumstances of the case that has been brought on record coupled with the fact that the writ petition was entertained in the year 2005, this court is of the opinion, that it is a fit case where the Court should exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the Court finds that the question with regard to the applicability of the Act is involved in the present writ petition and which goes to the root of the matter.