JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in Application No.36(13)/2016-RLC(R) by the Controlling Authority Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi, is under Challenge by which the petitioner has been directed to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000/-along with simple interest calculating @ 10% per annum from the date it became payable i.e. w.e.f. 01.09.2015 till the actual date of payment to the respondent No.2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter on the previous date, has submitted that the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-has been disbursed in favour of respondent No.2 but the order impugned has been assailed only with respect to the order passed by the authority pertaining to the interest as to whether the interest would be paid w.e.f. 01.09.2015 i.e. date of retirement or from the date of making an application. 3. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that he has retired from service working from Heavy Engineering Corporation, the petitioner w.e.f. 31.08.2015 and thereafter he has been paid sum of Rs. 46,61,033/-vide Cheque dated 01.09.2015 but due to paucity of funds, the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.9,83,899/-has not been paid which compelled the respondent No.2 to make an application before the controlling authority under the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as Act,1972, upon which, an order has been passed on 19.12.2015 directing the petitioner/corporation to make payment of Rs.10,00,000/-along with the simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date it became payable i.e. w.e.f. 01.09.2015 till the actual date of payment. 4. The part of the aforesaid order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the respondent No.2 has made an application on 05.05.2017, therefore, interest is to be paid only on or after 05.05.2017 not from the date of retirement i.e. from 31.08.2015. 4. The part of the aforesaid order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the respondent No.2 has made an application on 05.05.2017, therefore, interest is to be paid only on or after 05.05.2017 not from the date of retirement i.e. from 31.08.2015. Learned senior counsel has demonstrated by referring to the provision of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 read with provision of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Act, 1972 whereby and whereunder as per the provision of Section 7 of the Act, 1972, an application is required to be filed for getting the amount of gratuity and as such since the application has been submitted on 05.05.2017 it will be presumed to be in pursuance to the provision of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, 1972 and as such the respondent No.2 is entitled to get interest over the amount of gratuity w.e.f. 05.05.2017 and in no case from 31.08.2015 to 05.05.2017 but the controlling authority without appreciating the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1972 has passed the order directing for payment of amount with simple interest concluded @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 01.09.2015, which is not in consonance with the provision of law. His further contention is that the additional ground has been agitated regarding the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority by referring to the condition No.11 as Form-U which is part of the payment of Gratuity Central Rule, 1972 which conferred power upon the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Act to act as controlling authority and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to act as Appellate Authority since the impugned order has been passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner who happens to be the appellate authority to exercise the power of the Controlling Authority, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law due to lack of jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Learned counsel appearing for the learned Central Government counsel and also Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has jointly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order impugned. 5. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Learned counsel appearing for the learned Central Government counsel and also Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has jointly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order impugned. They have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal to be filed under the provision of Section 7(7) which provides that if any person is aggrieved by the order passed under sub-section-4 may file appeal within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order to the appropriate Govt. or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Govt. and as such since the factual dispute has been agitated by the petitioner/corporation hence the writ petition may not be entertained. The other submission has been agitated by them that gratuity is to be paid while paying the same, the authority is to take into consideration under the provision of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act read with Section 7 and therefore, the petitioner since has rendered continuous service for not less than five years on superannuation i.e. up to 31.08.2015 and as such he became entitled to get the amount of gratuity in the light of the provision of Section 7 of the Act, 1972. Section 7 of the Act, 1972 stipulates that a person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under the Act or any person authorized, in writing, to Act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. They have relied upon the provision of Rule 7 of the Rule, 1972 which contains the provision under sub-Rule 5 thereof that an application for payment of gratuity may be filed after expiry of the periods specified in this rule shall also be entertained by the employer, if the applicant adduced sufficient cause for delaying in preferring his claim, and no claim of gratuity under the Act shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period taking aid of that rule. Submission has been advanced that the application is not mandatory requirement in denying or disputing the claim of the petitioner it is for the reason that when Section 4 of the Act, 1972 provides about the entitlement of the amount of gratuity stipulating therein that the conditions for the entitlement, therefore, even if the application would not be made then the said entitlement could not be allowed to be frustrated. Further argument is that since the payment of gratuity Act, is purely welfare legislation and as such the hyper technical approach is not allowed to be adopted by the concerned authority otherwise the enactment of the Act, 1972 would be frustrated. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M/s. MMTC (Mica Division) Vrs. Sanjay Kumar Bhudolia and Others Etc. reported in 2014 SCC Online Jhar 2951, judgment rendered in the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited Vrs. Surendra Kumar Sinha passed in W.P.(C) No.876 of 2013 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Patna High Court of Ranchi Bench in the case of Mineral Area Development Authority Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (1998) 3 L.L.N. 484, In response the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ corporation that the ground of availability of alternative remedy is not applicable in this case since the order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing, so far as it relates to the petition pertaining to the condonation of delay in filing the application, according to him, delay has been condoned in one line i.e. the “delay is condoned” and therefore, the self-imposed restriction in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not come in the way on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. In order to strengthen the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Mineral Area Development Authority Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. passed in L.P.A.no.483 of 1997(R), decided on 19.12.2000. 6 . In order to strengthen the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Mineral Area Development Authority Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. passed in L.P.A.no.483 of 1997(R), decided on 19.12.2000. 6 . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court before entering into the issues on merit, deem it fit and proper to deal with the provision of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which has been enacted to provide a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railways companies, shops or other establishment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 7. The spirit of the enactment of the Act is for the welfare of the employee making therein, the provision along with the definition part wherein under the provision of Section 2 sub-section (d) the “controlling authority” has been defined as an authority appointed by the appropriate Government under Section 3. While sub-section (e) to Section 2 defines “employee”, which means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages where in terms of such employment are expressed or implied, in any kind of work in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop or other establishment to this act applies but does not include any such person who holds a post in the Central Government or the State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. The payment of gratuity has been stipulated under Section 4 which contains a provision that the gratuity shall be payable to an employee on termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,- (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: Section 7 deals with the determination of the amount of gratuity which provides that a person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorized, in writing, to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity. The Central Government has formulated a rule i.e. the Gratuity of (Central) Rules, 1972 in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which contains a provision under Rule 7 which provides (application) for gratuity. “(5) An application for payment of gratuity field after the expiry of the periods specified in this rule shall also be entertained by the employer, if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his claim, and no claim for gratuity under the Act shall be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present his application within the specified period. Any dispute in this regard shall be referred to the controlling authority for his decision” Under the appendix, Form-U has been referred which contains the provision about the machinery for enforcement of the Acts or Rules of Central spheres wherein under Condition No.11 it has been provided conferring power to all Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) who have been appointed as Controlling Authority and all the Regional Labour Commissioners (Central) as appellate authorities. In the light of the aforesaid provision of law the factual aspect has been appreciated by this Court. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has formulated three points to be answered. (I) Whether the writ petition is maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy ? In the light of the aforesaid provision of law the factual aspect has been appreciated by this Court. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has formulated three points to be answered. (I) Whether the writ petition is maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy ? (II) Whether the order impugned said to be not sustainable on the ground that the limitation has been condoned without providing opportunity of hearing ? (III) Whether the respondent No.2 is entitled to get interest as per the provision of Act, 1972 after retirement on the date when the application has been made or from the next date from the date of superannuation. Issue Nos.1 It is the proposition of law that on the ground of availability of alternative remedy which is the self-imposed restriction upon the High Court not to entertain the writ petition in case of availability of alternative remedy it is for the reason if the adjudication depends upon the factual aspects save and except if the order is without jurisdiction or contrary to statutory provision or if there is infringement of fundamental right. Herein, it is not in dispute that under sub-section (5) to Section 7 of the Act, 1972 the provision of appeal is there, to be filed before the higher authority as per the notification issued time to time by the appropriate Government in the light of the provision of Section 3 of the Act, 1972. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has tried to demonstrate his argument by establishing the fact that the writ petition is maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction as because the controlling authority i.e. the Regional Labour Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising the power of controlling authority since there is no notification to that effect but as has been contended by the respondent No.2 by placing the notification dated 16.10.2014 which has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of the Act, 1972 whereby and whereunder the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi and all Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) (Dhanbad Region), have been notified by conferring power to act as controlling authority which the appellate power has been conferred to the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central Dhanbad). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance upon the condition No.11 as contained under Form-U which stipulates that Assistant Labour Commissioner is the Controlling Authority, since the same has been superseded on 16.10.2014 as referred above, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the Condition-11 from From-U is held to be not sustainable, accordingly, rejected. In view thereof, herein since the order has been passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central Dhanbad) acting as a Controlling Authority, therefore, will be held to be competent authority in the light of the notification dated 16.10.2014. Further, so far as the contention that limitation has been condoned in one line as such there is violation of principle of natural justice but even if accepting this argument, the question of condoning the delay is mixed question of law and fact which requires adjudication by leading evidence for its appreciation. In view thereof, the contention which has been agitated by the petitioner by making out a case of exception for maintaining the writ petition since are not available as per the discussion made above, therefore, the writ petition held to be not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, issue No. 1 has been answered. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/corporation has submitted that since the other two issues pertains to the adjudication upon merit, therefore, the same may not be answered leaving it open to the petitioner/corporation to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate authority so that issue on merit may be agitated for its consideration. 9. In view thereof, while answering the issue No.1 and the other two issues are left open for its challenge before the appellate authority, if petitioner/corporation so wishes. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands, disposed of.