2026 LLR 141
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Ananda Chandra Behera, J.
WP (C) No. 6711/2023, Dt/ 23-12-2025
The Orissa State Co-operative Milk Producer's Federation Ltd.
v.
Presiding Officer, The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner and Ors.
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY Subsidiary companies Joint and several liability Opposite party No. 2-employee presented a claim for claiming gratuity against the petitioner-OMFED and opposite party No. 3(PUMUL) It was claimed that opposite party No. 2 had superannuated from service on 28-02-2021 after completion of 39 years of service under OMFED and PUMUL He was selected by OMFED as an apprentice but later posted as an Extension Asstt. under PUMUL The authority passed the final order against OMFED and PUMUL holding them to be jointly and severally be liable for payment of gratuity Hence, the present writ Held, OMFED is an administrative of the unions under it including PUMUL and exercised supervisions over it The conclusion that PUMUL is a subsidiary of OMFED is correct OMFED is the controlling authority of PUMUL The fixation of joint liability for payment of gratuity dues on OMFED and PUMUL making them jointly and severally liable is not erroneous The provisions pertaining to payment of gratuity should be interpreted liberally The retired employee should not be debarred from getting his gratuity dues merely because of the inter se dispute between OMFED and PUMUL The petitioner has also not preferred the statutory appeal and has straight away filed a writ petition which is not maintainable Writ petition is dismissed. Paras 14 to 21
For Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Kanungo, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. G.K. Acharya, Sr. Counsel a/b Mr. B. Das, Mr. B. Sahoo and Smt. J. Sahoo, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Note: This judgment is relevant even after the notification of the Labour Codes as this judgment reiterates general principles of industrial law.
Judgment
Ananda Chandra Behera, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner (OMFED) praying for quashing an order dated 30-11-2022 passed in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Head Quarters at Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No. 1).
The petitioner in this writ petition was the Opp. Party No. 1 in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 and the Opp. Party No. 3 (PUMUL) in the writ petition was the Opp. Party No. 2 in P.G. Case No. 1/2021.
The Opp. Party No. 2 in this writ petition was the petitioner in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Head Quarters at Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No. 1).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opp. Party No. 2 in this writ petition, i.e. Pramod Kumar Pani presented a claim application in Form No. N claiming his gratuity against the petitioner and Opp. Party No. 3 (OMFED and PUMUL) in this writ petition stating that, he was superannuated from his service on dated 28-02-2021 after completion of 39 years of his service as an employee under the OMFED and PUMUL. He was selected by the OMFED (petitioner in this writ petition) as an apprentice with effect from 17-03-1982 and after completion of 1 year as an apprentice under the OMFED, he was posted as an Extension Assistant under the PUMUL on 17-03-1983 and thereafter, he was promoted to different higher positions and continued accordingly and lastly, he (Promod Kumar Pani) retired from his service on dated 28-02-2021 as an Assistant Manager and by the time of his retirement, his salary was Rs. 68,046/-. Even after his retirement since 28-02-2021, his gratuities for the period from 17-03-1982 to 28-02-2021 has not been paid by the OMFED and PUMUL. When OMFED and PUMUL did not pay his gratuities, then, on the basis of his application a case vide P.G. Case No. 1 of 2021 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No. 1) was registered against the Opp. Parties, i.e. OMFED and PUMUL and in his application, he (Applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani) had prayed for directing the Opp. Parties for payment of his gratuities with interest.
3. Having been noticed in P.G. Case No. 1/2021, the (OMFED) filed its written statement taking its stands that, the applicant (Pramod Kumar Pani) was selected as an apprentice by the OMFED, but he was given appointment by the PUMUL as an Extension Assistant w.e.f. 17-03-1983 with regular pay and usual allowances as admissible under the Milk Unions Rules from time to time and as such, PUMUL was the appointing authority of the applicant (Pramod Kumar Pani) and he was an employee under the PUMUL, but not under OMFED, because OMFED is a separate and different entity from PUMUL and only relationship between OMFED and PUMUL is as debtor and creditor relationship. For which, OMFED can never be made liable for payment of any gratuity to the petitioner.
PUMUL filed its written statement admitting the retirement of the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani on dated 28-02-2021 from his service attaining the age of his superannuation stating in its written statement that, during the service career of the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani, he was under suspension vide Office Order No. 12/16 dated 18-03-2016 and he was reinstated vide Letter No. 102 dated 25-01-2017. During the pendency of the enquiry against him, he (applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani) approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by filing WPC No. 10207 of 2018 as well as I.A. No. 8484 of 2018 and then, a Contempt Petition No. 26 of 2019 was initiated, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court stayed the enquiry proceeding against him (applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani). For which, PUMUL requested to the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani to wait till the final disposal of the writ petition and I.A. as well as till the completion of the pending enquiry against him, which was stayed by the High Court.
When the matter relating to the enquiry against the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani is sub-judice, he cannot be allowed to draw the gratuity.
The further plea of PUMUL was that, the last drawn salary of the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani was Rs. 68,046/- including his Basic Pay+D.A.+GP-Grade Pay and on calculation his gratuity amount comes to Rs. 15,31,035/-.
So, under the above situation, the applicant is not entitled to get any gratuity, due to non-completion of enquiry against him.
4. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings between the parties, 3 numbers of issues were framed by the Opp. Party No. 1 in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 and the said issues are;
ISSUES
I. Whether the establishment of the Opp. Parties covered under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?
II. Whether the Applicant is an employee of the O.P. No. 1 or O.P. No. 2 under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and whether the Applicant is entitled to gratuity?
III. What is the quantum of gratuity payable to the applicant by the Opp. Parties and which Opp. Party is liable to pay gratuity to the applicant?
5. In order to substantiate the aforesaid claim, the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani, during the enquiry of P.G. Case No. 1/2021 examined him as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 9.
The Opp. Parties (OMFED and PUMUL) neither proved any document nor adduced any evidence from their side, though, contested the case of the applicant and cross examined the applicant (P.W.1).
6. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the documents, materials and evidence available in the record, the Opp. Party No. 1 answered all the issues in favour of the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani and against the Opp. Parties (OMFED and PUMUL) and passed the final order in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 on dated 30-11-2022 and allowed the claim of the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani on contest against the Opp. Parties (OMFED & PUMUL) making OMFED and PUMUL jointly and severally liable to pay the gratuity of Rs. 15,31,035/- to the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani with interest @ 10% per annum thereon w.e.f. 01-04-2021 till the date of actual payment assigning the reasons that,
initially the applicant (Pramod Kumar Pani) had joined under the Opp. Party No. 1 (OMFED) on being selected by the OMFED and subsequently his service was placed under the PUMUL and when OMFED is the Apex Organization of all the Dairy Co-operative Milk Producers Federation including PUMUL and PUMUL is a subsidiary of Opp. Party No. 1 (OMFED) as established through different communications between OMFED and PUMUL relating to the payment of the gratuity of the applicant, then, it is held that, both the Opp. Parties are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the gratuity of the applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani. As, the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is no longer in the realm of charity, but a statutory right provided in favour of the employee and once the employee retired from his service, there was no authority vested in the employer for continuing the departmental enquiry, if any against him, even for the purpose of reduction of his benefits payable. For which it is held that, the enquiry has lapsed after superannuation of the applicant and the applicant is entitled to get his full retiral benefits on his retirement from the Opp. Parties.
7. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid final order dated 30-11-2022 passed in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 by the Opp. Party No. 1, OMFED challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 being the petitioner praying for setting aside the same and to exonerate OMFED fully from its liability for payment of any gratuity of Pramod Kumar Pani jointly with PUMUL on the ground that, Pramod Kumar Pani was an employee of the PUMUL but he was not an employee of OMFED. For which, the OMFED should not have been made liable for payment of any gratuity to Pramod Kumar Pani.
8. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ASC for the State, learned Sr. counsel for the Opp. Party No. 2 and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No. 3.
9. On the basis of the application of Pramod Kumar Pani in P.G. Case No. 1/2021, objections filed against the same by the OMFED and PUMUL, the findings and observations made by the (Opp. Party No. 1) in the impugned order dated 30-11-2022, the materials, documents and evidence available in the record and the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is that,
(I) Whether the impugned order dated 30-11-2022 passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 making OMFED jointly liable with the PUMUL for payment of gratuity of the retired employee-Pramod Kumar Pani is sustainable under law?
(II) Whether the writ petition filed by the OMFED challenging the impugned order dated 30-11-2022 passed in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 instead of preferring a statutory appeal provided under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is sustainable under law?
10. In order to ascertain the sustainability and justifiability of the impugned order dated 30-11-2022 passed in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 by the Opp. Party No. 1 as well as the maintainability of this writ petition filed by the petitioner (OMFED), the above two points fixed for determination are required to be discussed and analyzed serially and chronologically one after another.
11. So far as the first point, i.e. Whether the impugned order dated 30-11-2022 passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 making OMFED jointly liable with the PUMUL for payment of gratuity of the retired employee-Pramod Kumar Pani is sustainable under law is concerned;
12. The learned counsel for the OMFED (petitioner in this writ petition) submitted the copy of the Bye Laws of the OMFED as well as the copy of the Bye Laws of the PUMUL.
As per Bye Laws of the OMFED, the area of operation of the OMFED shall comprise the entire State of Odisha called as Odisha State Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation Limited.
The Milk Union means the District cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited.
The object of the OMFED is to advice, guide and assist the Milk Unions in all aspects of management, supervision and audit functions and arrange to impart training to staffs of all the Member Unions and Societies.
To promote the organization of primary societies and to assist members in the organization of the primary societies.
To provide plan developmental strategies and programes.
To increase the volume of procurement and production of the Federation and its member Unions and for its effective marketing.
To render technical administrative, financial and other necessary assistance to the member Unions.
To enter into collaboration agreement with someone, if the need arises, to advise the member unions on price fixation, public relations and allied matters.
To create trusts and funds for the welfare of the employees.
To undertake periodical supervisions of the member Unions and the societies affiliated to its member union.
Federation will have also powers to recommend liquidation of any member Union or Primary Cooperative societies and to provide common services cadre for officers and staffs of the member Unions.
OMFED is to work as an Administrator of its member Unions at the request of the Registrar partially or fully, in the event of certain circumstances under section 32 of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 and to encourage fodder production by member or members of the affiliated societies.
13. The above object of the OMFED as per its Bye Laws, is clearly and unambiguously going to show that, the OMFED is an administrator of the unions under it including the PUMUL and the OMFED undertake periodical supervisions of the member of the Unions and the societies affiliated to it including PUMUL.
Because, the OMFED had/has the power to recommend liquidation of any member Union or Primary Cooperative societies like PUMUL.
14. As per By Laws of the OMFED as indicated above, the OMFED provides service cadres for officers and staffs of the member Unions including PUMUL. Because, the PUMUL is a member Union of the OMFED.
When the aforesaid Bye Laws of the OMFED is showing that, PUMUL being a District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, is one of its member Union and OMFED is the administrator of all member unions including PUMUL and OMFED provides common service cadres for officers and staffs of all the member Unions under it including PUMUL, then, at this juncture, the observations made by the Opp. Party No. 1 in the impugned order dated 30-11-2022 passed in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 that, OMFED is the apex organization of the Dairy Cooperative Milk Producers Federation of Odisha State including PUMUL as a district Co-operative Milk Producers Union and the PUMUL is a subsidiary of OMFED cannot be held as erroneous.
15. The applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani (P.W.1) has specifically deposed during the enquiry of P.G. Case No. 1/2021 that, he was selected through the interview made by the OMFED and on the basis of proper selection, he was appointed as an apprentice by the OMFED as per Letter No. 237-A/82 dated 05-03-1982 with a condition that, his service is liable to be transferred to any District Cooperative Milk Producers Union within the State during apprentice period and accordingly, he had joined as an apprentice before the OMFED on dated 17-03-1982 and on the basis of the condition of his selection Letter vide Letter No. 237-A/1982 dated 05-03-1982, he was transferred to the PUMUL and thereafter, on completion of one year i.e. on 16-03-1983, he was posted under the PUMUL as an Extension Assistant w.e.f. 17-03-1983 vide Letter No. 395 dated 27-05-1983 as per Ext.4. The communications were also made between the OMFED and PUMUL as per Exts. 7, 8 & 9 on the grievances for non-disbursement of the gratuities of Pramod Kumar Pani.
During cross examination of P.W.1 by the OMFED, no suggestion was given that, he (applicant-Pramod Kumar Pani) was not an employee under the Opp. Party No. 1 (OMFED).
16. The above exhibits and the Bye Laws of the OMFED are also going to show that, the OMFED is the controlling authority of PUMUL and OMFED is vested with all powers, i.e. recommendations, liquidations of any member Union or Primary Cooperative societies including PUMUL having common service cadres for officers and staffs of the member Unions and the selection of the petitioner was made by the Apex Organization of PUMUL i.e. OMFED and then, his service was placed under the control of its subsidiary union i.e. PUMUL.
Therefore, the fixation of joint liability for payment of gratuity dues of the applicant on the OMFED and PUMUL making them jointly and severally liable cannot be held as erroneous.
Because, the object of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is to achieve social justice and a liberal interpretation as well as wider meaning has to be given while interpreting the said Act.
That apart, for the inter se dispute between OMFED and PUMUL, the retired employee i.e. Pramod Kumar Pani should not be debarred from getting his legal gratuity dues.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision:
(I) In a case between Dr. A. Selvaraj v. C.B. M. College and Others, decided on 04-03-2022 in Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2022 (SC) that, a retired employee should not be made to suffer for the delay in making payment of his legally entitled dues on account of inter se dispute between the Management, Secretary and the Government. (Para No. 4)
17. So far as the 2nd Point, i.e. Whether the writ petition filed by the OMFED challenging the impugned order dated 30-11-2022 passed in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 instead of preferring a statutory appeal provided under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is sustainable under law is concerned;
Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that, an appeal may be filed by the employer or by the workman challenging the order passed by the controlling authority within 60 days of such order and in order to prefer an appeal as per section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, there is a pre-condition for the appellant to deposit the full adjudicated amount before the appellate authority.
18. Now, the question arises, whether this writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an award passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No. 1) without preferring any statutory appeal under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the OMFED is entertainable under law or not?
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:
(I) In the cases between Jajpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others v. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited and Other, (2024) 8 SCC 513, & Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. State of Orissa & Others , (1983) 2 SCC 433, if an efficacious statutory appellate route is available, the writ petition to challenge the impugned order is not maintainable.
(II) In a case between The State of Punjab v. M/s Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. , (2025) 1 Civ.C.C. 1 SC that, writ jurisdiction ordinarily through a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. When a right is created by statute which itself prescribed the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(III) In a case between Naseem Ahmad Khan v. ICICI Home Finance, Through Branch Manager Bhaskar Heights Building and others decided in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11013/2023 (Rajasthan High Court) Para Nos. 38 that, High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which, the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.
(IV) In a case between Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Assn. of India , (2011) 12 SC CK 0019 that, it is settled law that, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
19. Here in this matter at hand, when a statutory appellate forum is available under the statute, i.e. under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to challenge an order passed under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the Controlling Authority like the Opp. Party No. 1 depositing the full awarded amount, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the present writ petition filed by the OMFED without approaching the statutory appellate authority under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 only for the avoidance of the statutory deposit in case of filing of an appeal under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, this writ petition filed by the OMFED is not entertainable under law.
The conclusion drawn above in this Paragraph finds support from the ratio of the following decision:
In a case between Barket Ali S/o Ab Rehman Malik R/o Bharat Tehsil Bharath Bagla Distt. Doda. v. Divisional Manager SFC Division Bhaderwah decided in WP (C) No. 2021/2022 on dated 10-10-2025 (J&K and L High Court) that, The Payment of Wages Act, being a beneficial and self- contained legislation, prescribes not only the manner and mode of appeal but also the conditions precedent for its maintainability, including the mandatory requirement under section 17(1A) of furnishing a certificate of deposit of the amount payable under the direction appealed against. This requirement is not directory but mandatory in nature, as it seeks to protect the rights of the workman and ensure that, the employer does not frustrate the benefit of the award by filing dilatory appeals.
20. When as per the discussions and observations made above, both the aforesaid formulated questions are answered against the OMFED (petitioner in this writ petition), then, at this juncture, the question of interfering with the impugned order dated 30-11-2022 passed in P.G. Case No. 1/2021 by the Opp. Party No. 1 through this writ petition filed by the OMFED does not arise.
Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the OMFED (petitioner). The same must fail.
In result, the writ petition filed by the OMFED (petitioner) is dismissed on contest.