The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by The Tata Power Co Ltd. The court held that since an alternative efficacious remedy exists under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the matter is not fit for writ jurisdiction.
Writ petition rejected on the ground that an alternative efficacious remedy was available.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1721 OF 2005
The Tata Power Co Ltd ..Petitioner
versus
Mr Beloor Vijaykumar Anchan & ors .. Respondents
Ms Mitra Das with Ms Vasanti Kunder for Petr
Mr N.M.Ganguli for Respt no.1
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED : 12th July 2005.
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The
impunged order is passed under section 7 (4) of the
Payment of Gratuity Act. Learned counsel for the
respondents points out that an appeal against the
said order is provided under sub-section 7 of
2
section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the
circumstances, in my view, the petitioner has an
alternative efficicious remedy available. This is
not a fit case for entertaining the writ petition.
Hence, petition rejected.
D.G.KARNIK, J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this writ petition is maintainable given the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Whether the impugned order passed under section 7 (4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act is a fit case for judicial intervention.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Tata Power Co Ltd
Mr Beloor Vijaykumar Anchan
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court