I am perturbed the way how Ritesh Maity responded contradicting my advice that to approach High Court under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to obtain a direction that the matter pending before the labour court disposed of expeditiously. The gratuity litigation has to be disposed of by the Authority under Payment of gratuity Act. In some states, the State Govt. by special notification vested the power to the designated labour court as the authority under payment of gratuity Act. It appears your advocate might have approached the labour court under this notification. Or your advocate might have also approached the labour court under Section 33 (c)(2) of I.D. Act. If he approached under the latter channel, it would take further time even after passing of the award for its execution. Again a separate spl. civil suit for leave encashment and provident fund has been filed. If it is under employees' provident fund Act, again the petition before the Assistant Public Provident Fund Commissioner lies.
Why I suggested to you to approach the High Court is High Court has superintendet jurisdiction to give directions to lower courts. When your case falls under senior citizen category and you are agitating for superannuation benefits, which are bare survival essentials, the High Court will look into this matter differently and knowing fully well that labour courts and other lower trial courts are heavily burdened with a large number of cases, extend its helping hand to the senior citizen and give direction to dispose the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months. Such kind of request shall be put by your advocate at the bar effectively and he can get such direction from the high court. I am giving this advice not by just sitting in armed chair luxuriously, but out of experience which I put in the courts and after obtaining such directions from the courts in the deserved cases.