IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that separate periods of employment can be treated independently for gratuity calculations, allowing employees to receive full gratuity for each distinct period of service without the cumulative application of caps.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and called out for hearing.

2. This Petition is filed by The Maharashtra State CoOperative Adivashi Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 02/01/2020 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Gratuity Act') directing payment of gratuity of Rs.2,11,390.00 along with interest to the Respondent -employee. The Petitioner has unsuccessfully tested the Controlling Authority's decision before the Appellate Authority which has proceeded to reject the Appeal filed by its Judgment and Order dtd. 30/07/2022, which is also subject-matter of challenge in the present Petition.

3. Facts of the case are that the Respondent was employed in the office of Petitioner with effect from 13/07/1976. He tendered his resignation on 14/12/1988. For having completed 12 years of service, the Respondent was paid gratuity commensurate to the number of years of service put in by him. The Respondent was reemployed by the Petitioner again on 21/09/1994 and on attaining the age of 60 years, he retired from service on 31/08/2012.

4. While paying gratuity to the Respondent in respect of his second spell of service during 21/09/1994 to 31/08/2012, the Petitioner combined both the spells of service from 13/07/1976 to 14/12/1988 (12 years) and 21/09/1994 to 31/08/2012 (18 years). Under Rule 84 of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal Development Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules ('Service Rules'), gratuity is payable as 30 days' pay for each completed year of service, subject to the cap of maximum 20 months of pay. Applying the said cap, since the Respondent was already paid gratuity for 12 years of service in the first spell, the Petitioner restricted the gratuity in respect of the second spell of service to only 8 years and paid him gratuity for another 8 months of Rs.1,79,112.00. On 10/04/2014, the Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.31/2014 before the Industrial Court at Nashik under Item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The complaint was dismissed by the Industrial Court holding that Item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act did not cover the grievance of non-payment of gratuity. It held that Petitioner had a remedy provided under the Gratuity Act.

5. The Respondent thereafter approached the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act by filing Application (PGA) No.22/2018 on 21/04/2018. The Application was opposed by Petitioner questioning its maintainability after rejection of Complaint by the Industrial Court. The Application was also resisted on merits by Petitioner placing reliance on Rule 84 of the Service Rules. The Controlling Authority was pleased to allow the Application by Judgment and Order dtd. 02/01/2020 and held that the Respondent is entitled for payment of 18 months gratuity for service of 18 years rendered from 21/09/1994 to 31/08/2012. The Controlling Authority therefore directed the Petitioner to pay remaining amount of gratuity of Rs.2,11,390.00 along with interest @ 10% from 31/08/2012 till realization.

6. Petitioner filed Application (PGA) No.01/2020 before the Appellate Authority challenging the Order of the Controlling Authority. The Appellate Authority however rejected the Appeal by its order dtd. 30/07/2022. The Petitioner has accordingly filed the present Petition challenging the decision of the Controlling and Appellate Authority.

7. Mr. Kulkarni would appear on behalf of Petitioner and submit that payment of gratuity to the employees of Petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Service Rules. That, under Rule 84, there is a maximum cap of payment of gratuity of 20 months. That, the impugned orders passed by the Controlling and Appellate Authority are in the teeth of provisions under Rule 84. He would submit that the number of spells of service rendered by an employee is an irrelevant factor and employee's entitlem