Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court, in its judgment dated 4 January 2023, dismissed a writ petition filed by Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (formerly Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank) against an order directing it to pay gratuity and interest to the widow of a deceased employee. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1919 of 2021.
The dispute arose when the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna, acting as the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, ordered the bank to pay ₹8,32,882 as gratuity (along with interest) to the employee’s legal heir.
Instead of filing a statutory appeal, the bank approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the controlling authority’s order. However, the High Court refused to entertain the petition, holding that the bank should have first exhausted the statutory remedy available under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Background of the Case
The case involved a gratuity dispute under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The deceased employee’s widow (respondent) had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna, claiming gratuity and interest as per the bank’s internal regulations.
On 5 June 2020, the Controlling Authority directed the bank to pay ₹8,32,882 to the employee’s widow within 30 days. The order was communicated to the bank on 22 June 2020.
Instead of filing an appeal as allowed under Section 7(7) of the Gratuity Act, the bank filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order. The bank argued that:
- It had already paid ₹8,24,851 to the claimant;
- Hence, the matter was settled;
- The authority’s order was unnecessary and excessive.
The respondents, represented by their counsels, opposed the writ petition on the ground that the bank had bypassed the statutory appeal process and that the High Court should not entertain a writ when an alternative and effective remedy exists under law.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972:
Provides for an appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority to the Appellate Authority within the prescribed time, subject to deposit of the payable amount. - Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental or legal rights, but courts usually decline such petitions if an effective statutory remedy exists. - Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
Allows exclusion of time spent in a proceeding prosecuted in good faith before a court without jurisdiction, when considering delay in filing an appeal.
Court’s Observations
Hon’ble Justice P. B. Bajanthri noted that:
- The Payment of Gratuity Act provides a specific appellate mechanism under Section 7(7).
- The petitioner bank failed to use this remedy and directly approached the High Court.
- Merely making part payment of gratuity does not exempt the petitioner from following statutory procedure.
The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri [(AIR 2016 SC 3006)] which reiterated that a writ under Article 226 is not maintainable when an adequate and effective alternative remedy is available.
Quoting from City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala [(2009) 1 SCC 168]*, the High Court emphasized that before exercising writ jurisdiction, courts must consider:
- Whether disputed facts are involved;
- Whether all material facts are disclosed;
- Whether there exists an alternative remedy;
- Whether there is unexplained delay or laches; and
- Whether granting relief would conflict with public policy or valid law.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the bank’s petition was not maintainable and should have been filed as a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Court’s Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted liberty to the petitioner bank to file an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Gratuity Act.
However, the Court allowed a relaxation:
- The bank could deposit 50% of the disputed gratuity amount to entertain its appeal, considering that it had already paid a substantial portion of the gratuity.
- The Appellate Authority was directed to consider the delay in filing appeal sympathetically by taking into account Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows exclusion of time spent in pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum.
Thus, while the High Court dismissed the petition, it did not shut the door entirely — it allowed the bank to pursue the appropriate legal channel.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This decision reinforces a well-established judicial principle — when a statutory remedy exists, parties must first exhaust it before approaching the High Court.
For government bodies, public institutions, and banks, this serves as a strong reminder to follow procedural law rather than bypassing it through writ petitions.
For employees and beneficiaries, the case highlights that the Payment of Gratuity Act provides an effective mechanism to claim gratuity, and that courts will ensure the due process is respected.
In broader terms, the judgment safeguards the balance between judicial efficiency and procedural discipline — ensuring that High Courts’ writ jurisdiction is used sparingly, only when no other remedy is available.
Legal Issues Decided and the Court’s Reasoning
- Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable without filing an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Gratuity Act?
❌ No. The High Court held that the petitioner must first avail the statutory appellate remedy. - Whether partial payment of gratuity absolves the bank from appeal requirements?
❌ No. Making part payment does not nullify the order or exempt the petitioner from appeal obligations. - What relief was granted?
✔️ The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to file an appeal after depositing 50% of the disputed amount, with benefit of limitation protection.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and Others, AIR 2016 SC 3006
- City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168
Case Title
The Chairman, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (Erstwhile Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank) v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1919 of 2021
Citation(s)
2023 (1) PLJR 696
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Ms. Kanak Verma, Mr. Harendra Singh, and Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocates
Link to Judgment
MTUjMTkxOSMyMDIxIzEjTg==-5x4Zzvk9LWI=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
