S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of C.W.P. No. 10068 of 1997, C.W.P. No. 9825 of 1997 and C.W.P. No. 9258 of 1997.
(2.) MR . Kataria, learned counsel appearing for the management -respondent No. 3 - Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology Patiala has submitted that these petitions deserve to be dismissed as the petitioners in these petitions have failed to avail of the alternative remedy provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (The Act for short) and Regulation 18 which provides for an appeal from the order of the Controlling Authority. Petitioners should have made application under Section 7(4)(b) to the Controlling Authority for determination of the amount of Gratuity payable. Against the decision of the Controlling Authority, the petitioners could have filed appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioners in these petitions have rushed to this Court without availing the aforesaid remedies. Therefore, the petitions have to be dismissed with a direction that the petitioners, if so advised, may approach the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority under the Act. I have considered the submissions made above. In view of the decision given in C.W.P. No. 7722 of 2000, these petitions have to be allowed. The law points raised the these writ petitions are identical to the points raised in the writ petition No. 7722 of 2000. The matter is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab ami others,, 1996(2) SLR 757 :, 1996(2) SCT 399 (P&H) (DB).
(3.) MR . Kataria relying on Section 7(3 -A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has submitted that the petitioners would be entitled only to simple interest not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from lime to time for repayment of long -term deposits. 1 am of the considered opinion that this limit of interest would apply only if the payment is made by the management without making the retired persons resort to costly litigation. In the present case, the petitioners have not been paid for a period of four years. In such circumstances, this Court would be fully justified in exercising its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to award interest at the rate which would do complete justice between the parties.;