rf ^' IN THEJHGH COURTQFJUDIGATUREAT BILASPU eHHATTlSGARH WRITPETITIONNO ^&3-S^/2003/ PETITIONERS ^ •2. -.'^K^.-- ..^1:^"" %<^..-'-"'':1':::.•- 'A^*"" :..; RESPONDENTS .^. h^ 92. Adiainistrator, Lahidhi Multipurpose Higher Secondaty School, Chirmiri, P.0. -.Ghmniri Distrtet- Korea (C.G.) Principal, ;LaKidhi Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Chirmiri, P.0. - Chirmiri District - Korea (C.G.) VBRSUS Shn La:Bmi Narayan Jaiswal S/o. Shri Mahadev Prasad Jaiswal, R/6. BadaBajar, C/0-SarswatiPhoto Copy and Typing Center Chirmiri, .District-Korea(C.G.) ControU^igAuthorit^-. Underthe Payment ofGratuityAct., Through Labour Commissioner Office, KQrBafC.O.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227<OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIOH COURT GT CHHATTISQARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETniON N0.289S703 AdininlstTator & ano. \^. - Shri Laxmi Narayan Jalswal & ano. ORDER Postfor:^/10/2004. •/- V- -.-^' HIQH COURT Or CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.280S/03 / Adininistrator & ano. Vs. Shri Laxmi Narayaa Jaiswal & ano. ...>- Shri Vineet Pandey tbr the petitioners. Shri R.K. Jaiswal for respondent no.l. O R D ER The petitionere have flled this petition againet fhe order passed by the controlllng authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 4-12-2002. 2. BrieQv stated the facts of £he case are tKat the rcspondcnt no. 1 was working ui thc Lahidhi Multipurposc Higher Secondaiy School, CIurmul and after his retirement, he moved an application for payment of Gratuity before the ControIUng Aufhority zinder the Payinent of Gratuity Act. The leamed Conti'olling Authority vide fhe impugned order dated /1-12-2002 has allowed the same and directed fhe t>etitioners to pay the gratully amount of Rs. 2,22,339/- witfa 10% interest. Against ftie said order, the petitioners have filed this pctition. 3. Counscl for thc rcspondent no. 1 howevcr subtnitted that an altemative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners but they directly approached thls Court, therefore, tlie petilioii is iiol uiatiitauialile. 4. Counscl for thepetitlouers rclying upon the dccision in t.he case of State of IJ.P. & Ors. -v- M/s. Tndian Hiime Pine Go. Ltd. (U.J.(S.C.y 1977. Page 219 submitted that itha^been lield that there is no rule of law that the High Court should not entertain a writ petitlon where an altemative remedy is available to a party and farther that it is always a matter of discrction with thc Court and if fhc discrction has bccn exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is fhe settled practice of fhis Court not to interfere with the exercise ofdiscretion by the High Coiirt. 5. Tlris Coui't lias also dealt witli Uie uiaUer Iti tlic cases of Gummyldi Sineh Hora—v-Sta.te_of Chha.tyssarh. and dthers (2004(3) M.P.H.T. 29 (C.G.) and Smt, Ranibai-v- Statc ofC.G. and others f2002(2) C.G.L.J. 57). In Smt. Ranibal (Supra). it has been held in para 21 of the judgment as under: - 'The existence of altema.tive rerrwdy is not an absolute bccr to the retfef. is one of the circumsfcmces, whwhthe Court has to tcike into coiisideration while exerdsing its discretionary power under Article 226. Altemative remedy does nottake away the jurisdiction of the Caurt tograntrelieful excepttonal circumstances.' 6. ln view of the above discussions and judgment of ttie Apex Coi.urt and in view of the facts and cu-cumstances of the case, llie objecUou regai-duig maiiilaiiiabUity is uoL sustainable and it is held that this petition is cuaintainable. 7. The qiiestion gennane for dedsion is as to whether t.he respondent no. 1 who is a teacher is entitled for paym.ent of gratulty. Thls questlon has now been decided by HonT)le Supreme Court in a decision in case of Ahmedabad Pvt. Prim.arv Teachers' Association -v- Adm.uiistrative Officer and ors. (2004 (1) Sunreme 276). In thejudgment it has been held that the teachers who ore rualnly employed for impartinj education are not intended to be covered for extendmg gratuity benjefits under the Act. Teachers do not answer desciiption of being einployees who are 'skUled', ^emi-skilled' or~'unskUled'. These three words used in association with ^each brder intend to convey that a person who is 'unsldlled'is one who is not 'skUled' and a person who is 'semi-skllled' may be one who falls between two categories meaning he is neither fuUy skUlcd nor unskUled." 8. Thc rcspondGnt no.l docs not answcr dcscription of bemg employee who is skilled, semi-skilled or unsiailed. ^ 9.' In view of the settted legal position as lald down by the HonTale Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primarv Teachers' Associaliou, ttie uupugued oixler passed by tlie CoiiLroIUiig Ant.horily granfing grafiiiity is not siistainable and liable to he set aside. 10. Accordlngly, the petition ia allowed and im.pugned order dated 4/12/2002 passed by ttie Controlltng Autho^ity is set aside. sd/ e .'r^ ~i~*'/-" i."