- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010607672025 NC: 2026:KHC:37362 WP No. 28139 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 28139 OF 2025 (L-PG) BETWEEN: CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) NO.40, 1ST PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078. REPRESENTED BY ITS GROUP-HR HEAD SRI. RAGHAVAN B.D., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. NARAYANASWAMY J., S/O. LATE SRI. BAYANNA J., AGED 55 YEARS, MADAKALAVARIPALLI VILLAGE, THANGEDUKUNTA POST, OBULADEVARACHERUVU MANDAL SRI. SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-515 561. 2. THE LABOUR OFFICER AND AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DIVISION-6, KARMIKA BHAVANA, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010607672025 NC: 2026:KHC:37362 WP No. 28139 of 2025 BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU M.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.P.YOGANNA., AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN "B" GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Somashekar, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.C.Basavaraju, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.P.Yoganna, counsel for respondent No.2 appeared in person. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Controlling Authority dated 21.02.2025 on multiple grounds outlined in the writ petition. 3. Counsel for the parties advanced their respective submissions. The arguments have been heard and the record has been carefully perused. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010607672025 NC: 2026:KHC:37362 WP No. 28139 of 2025 4. It is a settled principle that an order passed by the Controlling Authority is amenable to challenge before the Appellate Authority under the statutory scheme. In the present case, however, the petitioner, instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, this Court declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount in question has been deposited before this Court. In light of the dismissal of the writ petition, the Registry is directed to transmit the said amount to the Controlling Authority forthwith. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53