Denial Of Additional Time To Lead Evidence Not A Violation Of Natural Justice To Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

Justice Gopinath P was delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by Majlis English Medium School challenging an order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The Controlling Authority under the Act, has ruled in favour of an employee, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court directly instead of filing an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act.

The petitioners contended that the Controlling Authority's order was vitiated by a denial of natural justice, as they were not granted sufficient opportunity to produce additional evidence. Relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation [(2003) 2 SCC 107], it was argued that the availability of an alternate remedy will not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The Court emphasized that the High Court will exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 only in three well-defined situations which are (i) The writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights protected by Part III of the Constitution of India, (ii) where the order is passed without jurisdiction and (iii) where the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

The Court further referred to decisions in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. E&TO [2023 SCC OnLine SC 95] to hold that availability of an alternate remedy does not bar maintainability per se, but High Courts should ordinarily decline to entertain writ petitions where an effective statutory remedy exists

The Court rejected the plea of violation of natural justice, and held that the failure to grant additional time to produce evidence or alleged non-appreciation of evidence does not constitute a breach of natural justice. It added that accepting such claims would result in routine litigation where evidentiary disputes will be framed as constitutional violation.

“The non-appreciation of a piece of evidence by the Controlling Authority (even if this is true) or the failure to give further time to produce more evidence cannot be said to be a violation of principles of natural justice. If that be so, every order, where a piece of evidence has been ignored or where a request or a petition filed for adducing further evidence is rejected, would be amenable to be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” Court noted.

With regard to the argument regarding pre-deposit under Section 7(7) of the Gratuity Act, the Court held that a statutory requirement to deposit the adjudicated amount as a condition for appeal is common across statutes.

“The fact that the petitioners have to deposit the entire amount for maintaining an appeal under Section 7(7) of the 1972 Act is also no ground to hold that the remedy of appeal is not an effective alternative remedy. There are several statutes which require the payment of the amount or a portion of the amount adjudicated by the Original Authority as a condition for maintaining the appeal. The Courts have not held that any such provision requiring the deposit of the amount as a condition for maintaining the appeal makes the appellate remedy illusory.” Court held.

The Court also noted that the petitioners had earlier challenged a preliminary order in the same proceedings, where the High Court had already directed them to pursue the statutory appeal after final adjudication. This, the Court held, further weakened their attempt to invoke writ jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, while reserving the right of the petitioners to challenge the impugned order under Section 7(7) of the Gratuity Act.

Case Title: The Manager, Majlis English Medium School and Anr. v The Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr.

Case No: WP(C) 13385/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 227

Counsel for Petitioners: T.T.Rakesh, Jayachandran Nair G., Zakheer Hussain

Counsel for Respondents: Resmi Thomas (GP)