JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J. With the consent of both the learned counsel, this writ appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 2. This writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 27.09.2022 in W.P.No.18627 of 2022 passed by the learned single Judge. The issue involved in this writ petition is about the calculation of the gratuity amount as per the formula prescribed. The writ petitioners state that 26 working days in a month should be adopted in the formula, whereas the respondents submit that 30 working days per month is to be considered. The learned single Judge after hearing both the parties and considering the leading judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jeevanlal Ltd., and others v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others, (1984) 4 SCC 356 held that the petitioners are entitled to the relief and directed them to collect the amount on the basis of ‘26 working days per month’. 3. The appeal is filed by the respondent-Bank. The case of the appellants as articulated by Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy is that the period of 30 days is taken correctly for the purpose of calculation of gratuity. He points out that the same period of 30 days is taken for the calculation of salaries, sanction of medical leaves, earned leaves etc. and the very same procedure was adopted for calculation of the gratuity. He submits that even the agreement entered into between the petitioner-association and the employees association clearly state that gratuity shall be payable at the rate of ‘one months pay’ for each year or service subject to a maximum of 20 months. Learned counsel submits that therefore, in view of the plain interpretation of the agreement, 30 days should be the basis for calculation. He, therefore, submits that the single Judge committed an error in allowing the writ petition. He also points out that instead of approaching the appropriate authority; the writ petition is directly filed. The writ is opposed on the ground that it is purely a dispute in a ‘labour’ matter. Lastly, he submits that the association is formed only for the purpose of this case and that no details of his members etc., are furnished. 4. He also points out that instead of approaching the appropriate authority; the writ petition is directly filed. The writ is opposed on the ground that it is purely a dispute in a ‘labour’ matter. Lastly, he submits that the association is formed only for the purpose of this case and that no details of his members etc., are furnished. 4. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents argues the matter and says that the issue of calculation of gratuity on the basis of 26 working days per month is no longer res integra. The leading case on the subject is reported in Jeevanlal Ltd., case (1 supra). He points out that this judgment is under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) only and the issue raised in the writ petition squarely fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is his contention that the period of one month was interpreted as 26 working days only. Therefore, he submits that the stand taken is not correct. 5. COURT: This Court after considering the submissions notices that there is no dispute between the parties about the essential facts. There is an agreement between the Banks and the Officers association. The writ petition is filed by an Employees’ Welfare Association and two other retired employees. Clause 69 (i)(c) of the Settlement is as follows: 69. (i)(c) In case of retirement on attaining superannuation, the gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of one month’s pay for each year of service subject to maximum of 20 months. 6. The question is whether this one month should be interpreted as 30 days or 26 days. In the judgment reported in Jeevanlal Ltd., (1 supra), in para 7, the very same issue fell for consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that 26 working days should be taken as the basis for calculating the monthly charges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon the earlier judgment reported in Digvijay Woolen Mills Ltd., v. Mahendra Pratap Rai Buch, (1980) 4 SCC 106 . In para 12, after considering the earlier judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that ordinarily a month is understood to mean 30 days, but in the manner of calculating gratuity payable under the Act to the employees, it should be ‘26 days in a month’. In para 7 itself of this reported judgment, the same was affirmed. In para 12, after considering the earlier judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that ordinarily a month is understood to mean 30 days, but in the manner of calculating gratuity payable under the Act to the employees, it should be ‘26 days in a month’. In para 7 itself of this reported judgment, the same was affirmed. 7. In view of this clear and categorical pronouncement of the law on the subject, this Court is of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the respondent-Bank and using 30 days for calculation is incorrect. 26 working days alone should be taken for the purpose of calculation. 8. As far as other objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, this Court finds that the existence of an alternative remedy is a self-imposed restriction by the writ Courts. In appropriate cases, the existence of an alternative remedy cannot come in the way of this Court while passing an order. The petitioners are Officers of a Bank. An interpretation and judgment which has been cemented over time and made in Digvijay Woolen Mills Ltd., (2 supra) case and clarified in Jeevanlal Ltd., case (1 supra) is still being interpreted wrongly. Hence, this Court holds that the writ is maintainable. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot direct the writ petitioners to exhaust the ‘remedy’ before an Industrial Tribunal etc. The law is well settled and it needs to be enforced. Therefore, the writ is rightly entertained and the writ appeal is also being entertained for the very same reason. This Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. 10. The last submission that the members of the petitioner’s association are not disclosed etc., is also not a reason to deny the benefit. Any claim made by a former employee or an existing employee will always be cross-checked with the available record. The retired employees who have been denied the benefit shall have to furnish details of their employment, retirement etc. The same can always be verified from the records of the Bank. Therefore, rejecting the appeal on this ground is also not correct. 11. For all the above mentioned reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.