IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21662 of 2008 Between: The Management of M/s Samrat Spinners Ltd., 8-2- 268/2/8/5, 2nd flor, Road.No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Asst. Commissioner of Labour and the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Government of A.P. PATANCHERU, Medak District and 767 others. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the impugned orders dated 31-3-2008 passed in PG Case No.1/2008 to 748/08 except PG Nos. 299/08 456/08 and 655/08 by the Asst Commissioner of Labour and the Controlling authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Patancheru, Medak District as illegal, void, and non-est under Law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.MALOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 21662 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled being aggrieved by a common order dated 31.3.2008 made by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Patancheru, Medak District, in P.G. Case Nos. 1 of 2008 to 748 of 2008 except P.G. Case Nos. 299/08, 456/08 and 655/08. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suﬃce to notice that about 700 applications were ﬁled under the Payment of Gratuity Act before the 1st respondent and all those applications were disposed of by a common order dated 31.3.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the 1st respondent is very cryptic and no procedure known to law was followed; whereas, learned Government Pleader for Labour submitted that there is an eﬀective and alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of appeal and instead of availing the said alternative remedy, the petitioner approached this Court directly, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is saddled with depositing of the entire amount for the purpose of entertaining the appeal. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to ﬁle statutory appeal before the competent authority by depositing half of the amount as awarded by the 1st respondent and on such deposit, the competent authority shall entertain the appeal without insisting upon payment of remaining half of the amount, during the pendency of the appeal, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The Registry shall dispatch this order, only after the petitioner pays court fee of Rs.100/- against each of the P.G. Case under challenge. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 29-09-2008. MVB.