Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge

Order Date: 18.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Modern Hotel Shakuntla Complex Private Limited (through Romesh Chander Mahajan, 85) and Rahul Mahajan, 50, both residing at 72 A/D Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
  • Respondent: Former employee who worked from 1984 to June 2011 and voluntarily resigned.
  • The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu (as Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) issued an ex‑parte order on 13.11.2023 directing the petitioners to pay Rs 7,78,846 plus interest of Rs 1,47,178 (total Rs 9,26,024) to the respondent under the Payment of Wages Act.
  • Petitioners appealed the order; the authority, on 22.07.2024, refused to set aside the ex‑parte order, insisting that a 100% deposit of the awarded amount was required under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act before entertaining the appeal.
  • Petitioners argued that the respondent had voluntarily left service, a fact supported by a certificate from the Provident Fund Organization, Jammu, and contended that the authority had not properly considered this evidence.
  • The respondent raised two preliminary objections: (i) the orders are appealable under Section 7(7) and the petition improperly invoked writ jurisdiction; (ii) petitioners had previously filed two writ petitions on the same cause of action, both withdrawn, and now sought fresh relief without liberty from the Court.
  • Prior proceedings:
  • Petition under Article 227 (CM(M) No. 183/2024) challenging the 22.07.2024 order was withdrawn on 09.08.2024, with liberty to seek an appropriate remedy.
  • Subsequent writ petition under Article 226 (WP(C) No. 2195/2024) was also withdrawn on 09.09.2024, this time without any liberty granted.
  • The present petition (CM(M) No. 281/2024, etc.) was filed again under Article 227, without reference to the earlier petitions, falsely claiming no prior writs.
  • The Court examined the principle that a litigant who withdraws a writ petition without permission to file a fresh petition cannot later invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of Articles 226/227 for the same cause of action, citing Supreme Court precedent (Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1987 SCC).
  • The Court held that public policy bars repeated petitions on the same grievance and that the petitioners’ conduct amounted to an abuse of judicial process.
  • Additionally, petitioner No. 2 (Rahul Mahajan) submitted an affidavit stating no prior writs, which the Court found to be false. Consequently, the Court ordered a show‑cause notice to be issued to petitioner No. 2 for possible perjury.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is dismissed as non‑maintainable on the ground of public policy and prior withdrawn writs.
  • A show‑cause notice will be issued to petitioner No. 2 regarding alleged perjury, and the Registry will post the matter on 21.10.2026 for further action.

Topics: Labour Law, Court Procedure