Maneesha Verma v. Govt of Not of Delfii and Ors

Delhi High Court · 16 Jan 2017 · 2017:DHC:8399
Valmiki J. Mehta
W.P.(C)399/2017
2017:DHC:8399
civil petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that disputes regarding payment of gratuity must be resolved by the statutory authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and cannot be entertained in writ petitions before the High Court.

Full Text
Translation output
$-23 & 24 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)399/2017&CM No.1831/2017(exemption)
MANEESHA VERMA Petitioner
Through; Mr.RajSingh Phogat,Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NOT OF DELFII AND ORS Respondents
Through; Mr.Uday Chauhan,Adv.for Ms.Sunita Bansal,Adv.for R-1 and R-2.
W.P.(C)401/2017&CM No.1834/2017(Exemption)
SUKIRTISAWHNEY Petitioner
Through; Mr.Raj Singh Phogat,Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS Respondents
Through; Mr.Uday Chauhan,Adv.for Ms.Sunita Bansal,Adv.for R-1 and R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VALMIKIJ.MEHTA
16.01.2017
ORDER

1. I have recently held in the judgment in the case ofMs. Neeru Abrol Vs. Chairman and Managing Director,National Fertilizers Limited and Anr., decided on 16.12.2016 in W.P.(C)4510/2016 that disputes as to payment of gratuity cannot be entertained by this Court in a writ petition inasmuch asthere is a specific authority which is created under the Payment W.P.(C)399/2017& conn. page[1] of[2] 2017:DHC:8399 of Gratuity Act, 1972 for deciding the disputes as to payment of gratuity. The relevant provisions in this regard are contained in various sub-sections ofSection 7(4)ofthePaymentofGratuity Act,1972.

2. These writ petitions are allowed to be withdrawn as prayed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority under the PaymentofGratuity Act, 1972.

3. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.

JANUARY 16,2017 ib VALMIKIJ.MEHTA,J