Dismissed¶41

Sri Siddhartha Education Institution (R) v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2026WP/9440/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC 2026 writ petition dismissed for bypassing statutory appeal; employer's challenge to Controlling Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act) order dated 28.10.2016 rejected on ground of non-exhaustion of appellate remedy; Articles 226/227; alternative/remedy-first doctrine; single bench of Justice Jyoti M; no precedent discussed; no quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to exercise its discretionary powers because the petitioner bypassed the statutory appellate remedy against the Controlling Authority's order and hurriedly approached the Court by writ petition; consequently the writ petition was dismissed. ¶39

Sri Siddhartha Education Institution (R) Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35715 WP No. 9440 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 9440 OF 2021 (L-PF)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SIDDHARTHA EDUCATION INSTITUTION (R), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MARALURU, TUMAKURU-572 105.

¶10

THE PRINCIPAL, SRI. SIDDHARTHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MARALURU, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R.GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION NO.01, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029.

¶16

SRI. S.RANGAPPA, R/AT MIG-1, NO.32, KHB COLONY, A.M.PALYA, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU-572 106.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1; R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:35715 WP No. 9440 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Sri.Chandrakanth R.Goulay, counsel for the petitioners appeared through video conferencing and Sri.K.P.Yoganna, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 appeared in person.

¶26

2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶27

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No.ALCB-1/pga/cr67/2013-14 dated 28.10.2016 (copy received on 09.12.2016) as per Annexure-A by the 1^st respondent as arbitrary illegal and void.

¶28

(ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled for similar relief as passed in Appeal No.ALCB03/PGA/Appeal/CR-29/2017 dated 23.02.2017 vide Annexure-B, and that the 2^nd respondent is not entitled for payment of interest as ordered by the impugned order bearing

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:35715 WP No. 9440 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

No.28.10.2016 (copy received on 09.12.2016) as per Annexure-A, insofar as it relates to directing payment of interest as ordered therein, to the extent the appellant is aggrieved and to dismiss the same, as it is illegal, arbitrary and void and otherwise unsustainable in law, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

(iii) Issue any other incidental and consequential relief/s as deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in aid of the main relief sought for, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶35

The order of the Controlling Authority dated 28.10.2016 is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶36

Suffice it to note that Sri.S.Rangappa had filed an application and the controlling authority vide order dated 28.10.2016 passed the order. The petitioner had suffered an order. However, instead of filing statutory appeal before the

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35715 WP No. 9440 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

appellate authority, petitioner has straight away and hurriedly approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The law is settled that the order of the controlling authority must be assailed before the appellate authority. In the present case, the petitioner has not assailed the statutory remedy. Hence, this Court declines to exercise the discretionary powers.

¶40

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶41

Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶43

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri Siddhartha Education Institution (R) v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddhartha Education Institution (R) v. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna K Vs Shri M R Doreswamy

The Company Secretary and General Power of Attorney Holder Vs Mr. J Anantharaj

Mr. Krishnan Rangachari Vs Bank of Baroda

The Management of Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Smt E v Lalitha Vs M/S Deutsche Bank Ag

Syed Nazeer Vs the Appellate Authority