Gautam Mehta v. Bikram Singh

Delhi High Court · 06 Apr 2018 · 2018:DHC:2245
Vinod Goel
W.P. (C) 7352/2016
2018 LLR 390
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Controlling Authority's order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, holding that the petitioner must first exhaust the alternative statutory remedy.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P. (C) 7352/2016
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
: 06.04.2018
W.P.(C) 7352/2016 & CM APPL. 30213-30214/2016
GAUTAM MEHTA, DIRECTOR M/S MEHTA OFFSET PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Puneet Saini, Advocate.
versus
BIKRAM SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Krishan Kumar Pandey, Advocate for R-1.
Ms.Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocate for Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD for R-
2 & R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Controlling Authority under subsection (4) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 despite the effective alternative remedy available under subsection (7) of Section 7 of the said Act. Similar writ petition was dismissed by this court in the case of Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd. Vs. Gurvinder Singh, 2018 LLR 390. 2018:DHC:2245 W.P. (C) 7352/2016

2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that he does not press the writ petition and would avail of the alternative remedy as available under the law for which liberty may be granted.

3. In these circumstances, the writ petition and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn with such liberty.

JUDGE APRIL 06, 2018 “shailendra”