JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Writ- A No. 31744 of 2011, Rehmat Ullah Khan v. Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and others, was preferred by the petitioner- appellant questioning the validity of the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by the Registrar of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. By the said order the petitioner- appellant had been informed that no amount is admissible to him towards gratuity and that entire amount, which was liable to be paid, had already been paid to him. 2. The Court after noting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and of the counsel for the respondent Bundelkhand University held that : “Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a social welfare legislation and same deserves liberal interpretation and as per the same as pension scheme which is applicable in the University concerned does not provide for payment of gratuity, same cannot be compared with gratuity payable under the Act, in view of this as Section 14 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has a over-riding effect, the University is obliged to pay the gratuity under Section 4 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the absence of any exemption obtained under Section 5 (1) of the said Act and such obligation to pay the gratuity continues to exist and accordingly present writ petition deserves to be allowed....” 3. After noting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Neeraj Tiwari, the Court further held that “petitioner is not at all entitled for gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as petitioner does not fall within the definition of employee as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as petitioner has been holding the post in question under the State Government and is governed by the other set of rules providing for payment of gratuity and in view of this claim in question is not acceptable and coupled with this it has also been stated that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a self contained act and in case petitioner claims that he is entitled for gratuity under the said act whereas the University is resisting the said claim, then such issue at the first instance has to be examined within the parameters of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the Controlling Authority, who has been conferred with wide authority under Section 7 (4) (A) of the said Act, in view of this present writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.” “In exercise of authority vested under Section 33 of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the State Government has issued order for ensuring payment of post retiral benefits Government Order dated 24th January, 1984 has been enforced and as per the same different benefits have been extended on opting for retirement at the age of 58 years and 60 years. The incumbents who opted to retire at the age of 58 years, they were entitled for pension, death-cum-retiral gratuity, family pension, general provident fund and the incumbents, who opted to retire at the age of 60 years, they were entitled for pension, family pension and general provident fund. The petitioner as per the Government Order dated 24th January, 1984 was mandatorily required to fill up the option form mentioning therein that whether he wanted to continue under the old scheme or wanted to continue with the scheme of pension, death-cum-retiral gratuity, family pension, general provident fund and thereafter petitioner had given his option. The petitioner as per the Government Order dated 24th January, 1984 was mandatorily required to fill up the option form mentioning therein that whether he wanted to continue under the old scheme or wanted to continue with the scheme of pension, death-cum-retiral gratuity, family pension, general provident fund and thereafter petitioner had given his option. The said Government Order dated 24th January, 1984 has been modified on 18th November, 2004 and as per the said modification choice of option has been closed and it has been resolved to provide gratuity and other post retiral benefits and the date of superannuation had been decided to 60 years. Petitioner has been paid the benefits as per the option which has been filled up by him and his precise contention is that he is entitled for payment of gratuity also under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but the same has been arbitrarily turned down by the Registrar of the University concerned. Petitioner’s submission before this Court is that law on the said subject stands clarified in the case of Allahabad Bank and another v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employee Association, 2010 (2) SCC 44 and in view of this payment of gratuity be ensured.” 4. The Court also considered the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and after considering the provision of the aforesaid Act opined in the operative portion of the order that : “the question before this Court is that once the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are self contained and in the present case the Registrar of the University concerned has proceeded to inform the petitioner that he is not entitled for gratuity, then should the petitioner be permitted to bypass the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The answer would be no for the simple reason that once petitioner is claiming that he is entitled for gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the other side is claiming that petitioner is not at all entitled for gratuity under the aforementioned act, then on refusal being made by the University concerned informing the petitioner that petitioner is not at all entitled for any amount by way of gratuity, the remedy of petitioner lies in approaching the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 instead of filing the present writ petition with a prayer that this Court should determine the question as to whether petitioner is entitled for gratuity or not under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Apex Court in the case of Champalal Binani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1970 SC 645 , proceeded to emphasize that Income Tax Act provides a complete and self contained machinery for obtaining relief against improper action taken by departmental authorities, and in normal course of business party feeling aggrieved by such action cannot refuse to have recourse to that machinery and to approach the High Court directly against the action. Similar view has been reiterated in the case of U.P. State Spinning Mills Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, 2005 (8) SCC 264 , by mentioning that writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution should not be entertained when statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. In view of this, as there is no exceptional circumstances to bypass the said statutory forum of approaching the Controlling Authority, this Court is not at all going on the merits of the present case as to whether petitioner would be entitled for gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or not and as to whether petitioner is not at all entitled for any gratuity under the provisions of the aforementioned act, as is being contended by the University and to the contrary this Court relegates the petitioner to approach the authority, who is authorised to decide such disputes after making enquiry under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, at the first instance. In view of this present writ petition, as it has been framed and drawn, is dismissed on the ground of equal and efficacious alternative remedy being available by approaching the Controlling Authority under Section 7 (4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid portions of the judgment clearly shows that the petitioner-appellant himself was claiming that he was entitled for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, therefore, in our considered opinion there is no illegality committed by the learned Judge in the judgment, impugned in the writ petition, in dismissing the same on the ground of equal and efficacious alternative remedy being available to the petitioner for approaching the Controlling Authority under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. We may note here this Court in its order dated 18.3.2013 had noted the following issues for consideration: “(1) Whether, without recording the express finding of the applicability of Statute to an establishment or to an employee, the Court could dismiss the writ petition on the ground that there exists an alternative remedy under a Statute, the applicability of which is uncertain. (2) The second question which is equally important and necessary for decision of the first question is the meaning of the expression “post under the State/Central Government.” More precisely, the question is whether an employee of an autonomous body can be said to be holding a post under the State/Central Government.” 6. Since we are considering validity of the view of the writ Court which has directed the matter to be decided in alternate forum, we therefore, do not propose to enter into the merits of the case at this stage and direct the Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to decide the claim of the petitioner- appellant including the issues framed in the interim order dated 18.3.2013 by this Court. 7. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ——————