ORDER : 1. Since the issues involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are identical; therefore, they are heard anologous and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the Writ Petitions are that petitioners were working as a Gangman in the Public Works Department, they retired after attaining the age of superannuation as gangman in Public Works Department. Petitioner Guharam Sahu worked as gangman for more than 45 years and 9 months and petitioner Ramdiyal Yadav worked for more than 36 years and 9 months in the Public Works Department. The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur had issued pension payment order on 18.11.2015 for petitioner namely Guharam Sahu for releasing gratuity to the tune of Rs. 1,58,794. According to the petitioners, Guharam Sahu was entitled to receive Rs. 2,83,230/- but Rs. 1,58,794/- was paid which is less payment. Ramdiyal Yadav was entitled to receive Rs. 1,85,903/- but he was paid to Rs. 1,50,082/- as Gratuity. 3. Being aggrieved with less payment of gratuity by the respondent, petitioners have filed an application under Rule 10 sub Rule (1) of payment of Gratuity Act 1972 before the Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur but the said authority has refused to entertain the same on the count that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the government servant for grant of gratuity. 4. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act without following the due process of law, without assigning any reason vide its memo dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure P/1) has rejected the said applications. The Controlling Authority has recorded its brief finding that since the petitioners are regular employees of Government Department as such the Controlling authority has no jurisdiction to hear the case for grant of gratuity, therefore, the applications filed by the petitioners are rejected as not tenable, however, liberty was granted to the petitioners to file application before the appropriate forum. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2016, the petitioners have preferred the writ petitions before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Controlling Authority without assigning any reason or without following due process of law has rejected the applications of the petitioners which is against the provisions as provided under Rule 11 of Payment of Gratuity Rules 1973;- The relevant provisions are as under:- Rule 11. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Controlling Authority without assigning any reason or without following due process of law has rejected the applications of the petitioners which is against the provisions as provided under Rule 11 of Payment of Gratuity Rules 1973;- The relevant provisions are as under:- Rule 11. Procedure for dealing with application for direction:- (1) On receipt of an application under Rule 10 the Controlling Authority shall, by issue ding a notice in Form 'O' call upon the applicant as well as the employer to appear before him on a specified date, time and place, either by himself or through his authorised representative together with all relevant document and witnesses, if any. (2) Any person desiring to act on behalf of an employer or employeer, nominees or legal heir, as the cases may be shall present to the Controlling Authority a letter of authority from the employer or the person concerned, as the case may be, on whose behalf he seeks to act together within a written statement explaining his interest in the matter and praying for permission so to act. The Controlling Authority shall record thereon an order either according his approval or specifying in the case of refusal to grant the permission prayed for the reason for the refusal. (3) A party appearing by an authorised representative shall be bound by the acts of the representatives. (4) After completion of hearing on the date fixed under sub-rule (1), or after such further evidence, examination of document, witnesses, hearing and enquiry, as may be deemed necessary, the Controlling Authority shall record his finding as to whether any amount is payable to the applicant under the Act. (5) If the employer concerned fails to appear on the specified date of hearing after due service of notice without sufficient cause, the Controlling Authority may proceed to hear and determine the application ex-parte. If the applicant fails to appear on the specified date of hearing without sufficient cause, the Controlling authority may dismiss the application. Provided that an order under this Sub-rule may, on good cause being shown within thirty days of the said order, be reviewed an the application reheard after giving not less than fourteen days notice to the opposite party of the date fixed for rehearing of the application. 7. Provided that an order under this Sub-rule may, on good cause being shown within thirty days of the said order, be reviewed an the application reheard after giving not less than fourteen days notice to the opposite party of the date fixed for rehearing of the application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Controlling Authority should not have rejected the applications without assigning any reason and without following process as provided in the Rule 11 of the Gratuity Rule 1973. He would further submit that order dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure P/1) issued by Controlling Authority is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as there is remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act by filing an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is as under:- 7. Determination of the amount of Gratuity 7(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf. 9. The State has filed their return contending that the Joint Director, Treasury Account and Pension, Bilaspur had issued PPO order dated 11/05/2015 and 18.11.2015 for releasing of gratuity to the petitioners and in pursuance of the PPO gratuity has been paid to them. The controlling authority has rightly held that the petitioners are regular employees and gratuity amount has already been paid, therefore, there is no question of hearing the application filed by the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act exists; therefore, petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. It has also been contended that the petitioners have remedy of appeal as mentioned above, therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their submissions and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. This Court has examined the objection raised by the respondent whether in absence of remedy of appeal the present writ petitions are maintainable or not. 12. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their submissions and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. This Court has examined the objection raised by the respondent whether in absence of remedy of appeal the present writ petitions are maintainable or not. 12. This Court has admitted the petitioners on 23.02.2017 and directed the State to file reply and in pursuance of direction of this Court, the State has filed reply. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Controlling authority has passed the order without assigning any reason, non-speaking order, in violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, the writ petitions are very much maintainable. From the facts, it is evident that this Court has admitted these writ petitions for hearing on 23.02.2017, therefore, at this juncture delegating the petitioner for filing of appeal before the Appellate Authority will be futile exercise as such it is expedient for this Court to examine the case on merit. Even otherwise, it is well settled legal position that entertaining the writ petition without exhausting the alternate remedy of appeal is no bar and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court can very well admit the writ petitions though the statutory remedy of appeal is available. This issue has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 27. The principles of law which emerge are that ;- 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; 27.4 An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; 27.5 When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 13. From the above stated legal position and considering the facts of the case that the Controlling authority has passed the order without assigning any reason, mechanically rejected the application filed by the petitioners which is clear cut violation of principle of natural of justice, suffers from non-application of mind and also against the Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Payment of Gratuity Rule 1973, therefore, instead of re-delegating the petitioners to file appeal after laps of five years, it would be desirable for this Court to decide validity and correctness of the impugned memo dated 04.04.2016 (P/1) on merits. 14. 14. From the application filed by the petitioners before the Controlling authority it is quite vivid that the petitioners are retired as Gangman whether the gangman is State employee or not has not been asserted by the Controlling Authority merely on the basis of PPO order issued by the Joint Director, Treasury Account and Pension, Bilaspur, the Controlling authority has held that the petitioners are government employee, therefore, applications are not maintainable. For examining the issue whether Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the present fact of the case or not, it is expedient for this Court to examine the relevant provisions of the Gratuity Acts which reads as under:- 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it shall apply to (a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company; (b) Every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shop and establishement in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months; (c) Such other establishment or class of establishment, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. 15. Various provisions have been enumerated under Payment of Gratuity Act with regard to payment of gratuity to an employee by the employer and various safeguards have also been made on which condition the gratuity can be withheld or cannot be withheld. The Gratuity Act is complete code. This issue has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab vs. Labour Court, Jullundur and others (1980) 1 SCC 4 which is as under:- 7. It is apparent that the Payment of Gratuity Act enacts a complete code containing detailed provisions covering all the essential features of a scheme for payment of gratuity. It creates the right to payment of gratuity, indicates when the right will accrue, and lays down the principles for quantification of the gratuity. It provides further for recovery of the amount, and contains an especial provision that compound interest at nine per cent per annum will be payable on delayed payment. It creates the right to payment of gratuity, indicates when the right will accrue, and lays down the principles for quantification of the gratuity. It provides further for recovery of the amount, and contains an especial provision that compound interest at nine per cent per annum will be payable on delayed payment. For the enforcement of its provisions, the Act provides for the appointment of a controlling authority, who is entrusted with the task of administering the Act. The fulfilment of the rights and obligations of the parties are made his responsibility, and he has been invested with an amplitude of power for the full discharge of that responsibility. Any error committed by him can be corrected in appeal by the appropriate Government or an appellate authority particularly constituted under the Act. 16. In the present case, the petitioners have not given any opportunity to demonstrate whether they are employees of exempted establishment under Payment of Gratuity Act. It is well settled position that until and unless specific material is placed on record that the establishment is exempted from application of Gratuity is placed on record, it is presumed that the Act is applicable on the establishment and the employees are entitled to gratuity as per the payment of Gratuity Act. It is also well settled legal position that unless the State Government adopts Pension Rule 1972 for the employee working as gangman it cannot be held that the payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable on the petitioners. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma and Another 1998 (7) SCC 221 held as under:- 2. In view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the provision for gratuity under the Pension Rules will have no effect. Possibly for this reason, Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has conferred authority on the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the operation of the provisions of the Act, if in its opinion the employees of such establishment are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. Admittedly MCD has not taken any steps to invoke the power of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Admittedly MCD has not taken any steps to invoke the power of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that the employees of the MCD would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the Pension Rules have been made applicable to them for the purpose of determining the pension. Needless to mention that the employees cannot claim gratuity available under the Pension Rules. 17. From perusal of memo dated 04.04.2016 (P/1), it is quite vivid, that no material has been placed even no opportunity was given to the respondents to file their written statement. The Controlling authority has rejected the applications without assigning any reason which is violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, the order passed by the Controlling authority is nonest and deserves to be set aside. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Sukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785 held as under;- 10. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad. 12. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad. 12. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute principle of law that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable a higher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. To sub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing. 13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 19. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 19. In the cases where the Courts have not recorded reasons in the judgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the Court of competent jurisdiction are challenged in absence of proper discussion. The requirement of recording reasons is applicable with greater rigor to the judicial proceedings. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court. 18. In the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the fact that no reasoned order has been passed by the Controlling Authority while rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners, the impugned order dated 04.04.2016 (Annexure P/1) is quashed, the matter is remitted back to the Controlling authority to give an opportunity to the respondents to file their written statement, to adduce evidence by both the sides and thereafter, decide the case of the petitioners afresh on its own merit within outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Court. 19. With these observations, the writ petitions are allowed.