Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs Controlling Authority Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Assistant Labour Commisioner Bareilly and 5 Oth — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs Controlling Authority Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Assistant Labour Commisioner Bareilly and 5 Oth — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only: petitioner to file personal affidavit within one week stating reasons for bypassing the statutory alternative remedy; matter to be put up fresh on 18th September, 2025. The writ petition was neither allowed nor dismissed at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the writ petition where a statutory alternative remedy — appeal under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — is available to the petitioner but was not availed. +1 more

Court's answer

A statutory alternative remedy of appeal under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is available to the petitioner, but for reasons best known to it the petitioner/Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti approached this Court without availing that remedy.

Ratio / Principle

Earlier also the same objection (non-availment of the statutory remedy) had been raised by this Court in Writ C No. 5739 of 2029, confirming the petitioner's repeated approach to this Court bypassing the statutory remedy.

Key takeaways

In the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to file a personal affidavit within a week stating the reasons for filing the present writ petition before this Court without availing the statutory alternative remedy.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.), Writ - C No. 30562 of 2025, decision dated September 3, 2025 — Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Controlling Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act 1972)/Assistant Labour Commissioner Bareilly and 5 others. This is, per the Court's memory, at least the fourth writ petition filed by the Mandi Samiti through its Secretary challenging an order passed under section 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court observes that a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 is available but was not availed; counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment and order dated 25.04.2025 in Writ C No. 5739 of 2029, wherein the same objection was raised and the petitioner was given three weeks to file an appeal with requisite deposit. Directing attention to that pattern, the Court instructs the petitioner to file a personal affidavit within a week stating the reasons for approaching the Court without availing the statutory remedy, and puts up the matter fresh on 18th September, 2025. Interim stage only — no final ruling on maintainability was made in this order.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 30562 of 2025

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti

.....Petitioner(s) Versus Controlling Authority Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 Assistant Labour Commisioner Bareilly And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lakshmi Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Archit Mandhyan, C.S.C.

Court No. - 33

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

At least this is the fourth writ petition (as per the memory of the Court) filed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, District ..... through its Secretary challenging the order passed by the Controlling Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act 1972)/Assistant Labour Commissioner Bareilly under section 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file appeal before the appellate provided under sub section 7 of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 but for the reasons best known to the petitioner/Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, they approached this Court without availing the statutory alternative remedy.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 25.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 5739 of 2029, which reads as follows:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Archit Mandhyan, learned

counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 and Sri Amit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as the statutory remedy of

WRIC No. 30562 of 2025

2

filing an appeal is available under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for three weeks' time to file appeal with requisite deposit as required under the relevant provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a direction is issued that in case any such appeal is filed within three weeks from today, same may be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of next six months ignoring the delay, if any.

4. Needless to say that in case the statutory appeal is not filed within the time, prescribed above, along with requisite deposit, it shall be open for the authorities concerned to proceed in accordance with law.

5.The writ petition stands disposed off.

6. No order as to costs. "

From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that earlier also the same objection was raised by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to file his personal affidavit within a week stating therein the reasons for filing the present writ petition before this Court without availing the statutory alternative remedy.

Put up this case as fresh on 18th September, 2025.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

September 3, 2025

Arti

Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad