MAHARISHI VED VIGYAN VISHWA VIDYA PEETHAM v. SHRI SHEKHAR GANGAPURWAR
WPL/147/2022 · 2026-07-20
Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 28075 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 28075 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
CGHC010396482022
2026:CGHC:30911
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 147 of 2022 Maharishi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidya Peetham Through Its Secretary, Address- Village Chhan, Bhojpur Road, Bhopal (M.P.)
... Petitioner(s) versus
1. Shri Shekhar Gangapurwar S/o Late Shri Gaurayya Gangapurwar Ashok Nagar, Khamtarai, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Labour And Employment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.)
3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner Cum Controlling Officer P.G.A Bilaspur, Labour Office, New Composite Building, Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Principal/director Mahrshi Shiksha Sansthan, Maharshi School, Village Mangla, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board 21.7.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal.
2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction thereby quashing or setting aside the entire proceedings drawn in case No. 17/P.G.A./2021, including the
order
dated
29/03/2022,by
the
TAR Presiding/controlling Authority Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Blaspur, Bilaspur (C.G), the same being non-est., without & illegal, arbitrary. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction thereby quashing or setting aside the notice dated 02/11/2022, issued by the Presiding/controlling Authority Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G). 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Controlling Authority, who exercised power under Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1972’] was not appointed by the Central Government and it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application moved by an employee or his/her legal representative(s) whose employer/ establishment has branches in more than one State. He further submits that petitioner-establishment has branches in more than one state therefore the appropriate Controlling Authority shall be the one appointed by the Central Government, thus in the present case, the authority concerned who was appointed by State Government exceeded its jurisdiction while entertaining the application moved by the petitioner. He prays to set aside the order impugned. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner
3 has not placed any material on record in support of the contention made herein-above. He further submits that “appropriate Government” in relation to an establishment is Central Government or State Government and as the petitioner- establishment is situated within the territory of State of Chhattisgarh therefore the appropriate Government would be State Government. He also submits that petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy to prefer appeal before the appellate authority therefore this petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5) Admittedly, petitioner failed to place any relevant document on record to substantiate that the Controlling Authority who passed the order impugned has no jurisdiction to entertain an application moved by a workman or his/her legal representative(s) seeking payment of gratuity. Also, there is efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner to prefer appeal according to the provisions of Section 7(7) of Act of 1972.
6) Having considered the above-discussed facts, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.22 10:38:01 +0530