COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCG) Writ Appeal No.^6^ /2012 (Division Bench) v. €^ ^. CSPONDENTS Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai

WMT APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH UNDER SECTION 2fl) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT ( APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH s BILASFOR DB: Hoiitble Sliri Afohay Maaohw Sapre & Hon^ble Shri Maaaadra Moliaa Shrivastava, JJ< Writ Aopeal No. 255 of 2012 Steel Authority of India Limited APPELLANT /Petitioner Versys KESPQNDENTS: ControUing Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, ALC, Durg and anofher APPELLANT /Petitioner RE8PONDENT8: ^^LLANT /Petitioner KBSPONDENTS: APPBLLANT /Petitioncr RESPONDBNTS: APPELLANT /Petitioner RESPONDBNTS: Writ Appeal No. 252 of 2012 Steel Aufh.onty oflndia Limited Versus ControUnig Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt, Labour Commissioner, Durg and auother Writ Aooeal No. 2S3 of 2012 Steel Aufhoritv oflndia Limited Versus ControUing Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt, Laboiir Commissioner, Diirg and another WritAppealNo._254pf2Q12 Steel Aufhority oflndia Limited Versus ControUing Autliority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt, Labour Coiixmissioner, Durg and another Writ Ao»ealNo.

256 of 2012 Steel Aufhority oflndia Limited Versus CoutroUiiig Authority under Payment of Grattdty Act & Asstt. Labour Commissiouer, Durg and another f r tVl\ APPBLLANT /Petitiouer RESPONDBNTS: APPELLANT /Petitioner RESPONDENTS: APFBLLANT /Petitioner RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT /Petitioner RESPONDBNTSt APFBLLANT /Petitioner RESPONDBNTS: Writ Aooeal No. 257 of 2012 Steel Autihionty of India Limited Versus ControUin^ Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Durg and another Writ Appeal No. 260 of 2012 Steel Aufhority oflndia Limited Versus Controlling Authonty under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt, Labour Commissiouer, Diirg and another Wrtt Appeal No. 261 of 2012 Steel Authority oflndia Limited Versus ControUing Authority under Payment of Gratidty Act & Asstt. Labour Coiamissioner, Durg and another Writ Aooeal No. 262 of 2012 Steel Authority oflndia Limifced Versus CoutroUing Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt.

Labour Commissiouer, Durg and another WritAppealNo. 263 pf 2012 Steel Authority oflndia Limited Versus ControUing Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt Labour Commissiouer, Diirg and another !•(.. i li; sy^j| • vw€/ %. APFBLLANT /Petitioner RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT /Petitioner RESPONDENT8: AP] LLANT /Petitioner RESPONDBNTSt APPELLANT /Petitioner RESPONDENTS: Writ Aopeal No. 264 of 2012 Steel Aufhority of India Limited Versus ControUing Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt. Labour Commxssioner, Durg and another Writ Aopeal No. 265 of 2012 Steel Aufhority oflndia Limited Versus ControUing Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt, Labour Commissioner, Durg and another Writ Aooeal No. 266 of 2012 Steel Authonty oflndia Limited Versus ControlUng Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act & Asstt, Laboiir Commissioner, Durg and another And Writ Aopeal No. 267 of 2012 Steel Authority oflndia Limited Versus CoiitroUing Aufhority under F^yment of Gratuity Act & Asstt.

Labour Comniissioner, Durg and another Appearance: Mr. B.P. Mishra, counsel for the appellant .•;£':'^' ^j^^ ^.. ''^. ;^^ ,^* ' ':^' 4 ORDBR (Passed on 27th April, 2012) Heard. 2 By this order, the above writ appeals, arising out of common order dated 18t March, 2012 passed in W.P. No.4833/04 and other connected matters, are beiag decided. 3 By the impugned order dated 1st March, 2012, the leamed Single Judge, dismissed fhe writ petition filed by fhe appellant, essentiaUy on fhe ground of availabUity of an altemative remedy ffliiig the appeal by them before the Deputy Labour Commissioner (D.L,C.), under Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ttthe Act of 1972'} against fhe order passed by fhe ControlUng Authority under the Act While granting fhis liberty, fhe learned Single Judge also directed fhat bar of liinitation would not come in the way of the appeUant prosecuting fhe appeal once fUed before the AppeUate Authority and the same shall be heard and decided on merits.

4 Haviag heard learned counsel for the appeUant and on perusal of fhe records of the case, we are inclined to concur wifh the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by fhe learaed Siagle Judge in fhe writ petition. 5 In our view too, fhe appropriate remedy available to the appellant ia this case is to first file the statutory appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner as provided under Section 7 (7) of the Act of 1972, against the order passed by the Controlliag Aufhority s ,> .7" ,^& | 1 :Vyr1 £ \.- under fhe Act, which was impugned in the writ petitions and out of which, fhese appeals arise and then take recourse to challenge any adverse order iu appropriate forum in higher Courts. 6 It is a settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court, as rightly relied on by the learned Smgle Judge fhat the party must first take recourse to alternative statutory remedy of appeal as provided under fhe Act to chaUenge the order rather than to take recourse to invoking the extoraordiaary powers avaUable under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of Indla to chailenge such order, directiy.

7 Let fhe appeal be filed by the appellant withia 60 days from the date of this order before appropriate authority under the Act agaiast the order of ControUtag Authority, On such appeal being filed, the AppeUate Aufhorily shall decide fhe appeal on ments after affording an opportunely of being heard to all parties concerned, within a period of 6 months from fhe date of its presentation. 8 Needless to observe, ia fhe event of any adverse decision sufiered by fhe appellant, they will always be at liberty to challenge it in appropriate proceedings as permissible to them under the law, 9 Subject to these obser^ations, the above writ appeals are fmally disposed of. Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen