The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has overriding effect over other statutes and regulations, and prevails in cases where gratuity is not regulated under other provisions.

Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)

W.P.(C) 5138/2014

W.P.(C) 5139/2014

W.P.(C) 5140/2014

W.P.(C) 5143/2014

1. Issue in all the above-noted petitions is that University of Delhi is constituted under the University Act, 1922, hence, the Gratuity Act is not applicable on the employees of the University. Therefore, this court has decided to dispose of all the petitions by way of a common judgment.

2. Vide the present petitions, the petitioners are seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority (Respondent no. 2) in ALC-I/36/305/2013 titled as „Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta v. Registrar, University of Delhi?and order dated 02.04.2014 passed in Appeal No. 36 (76) 2013-P.A. by the respondent no. 3, i.e., the Appellate Authority.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner University of Delhi submits that petitioner University of Delhi is a Central University, which came into force by virtue of Delhi University Act, 1922 and the said Act has specific provisions under its Statute 28-A for payment of gratuity to its employees and the respondent no. 4, i.e., the University Grant Commission (UGC), who with the approval of respondent no. 5, i.e., Ministry of HRD, introduced the provisions of payment of gratuity to the University employees through Central Universities Retirement Benefit Rules, 1967.

4. Ld. Counsel further submits that employees of the petitioner are thus governed by the said provisions under its Statute 28-A for payment of gratuity and accordingly, the employees of the petitioner are being paid gratuity as per the same along with the Rules as aforesaid read with CCS Pension Rules.

5. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 in the above-noted petitions W.P.(C) Nos. 5138/2014, 5139/2014, 5140/2014 and 5143/2014 are the ex-employees of the petitioner, who retired on 30.11.2012, 28.02.2003, 31.08.2003 and 31.10.1999 respectively and was accordingly paid gratuity for a sum of Rs.7,55,192/-, Rs.2,67,899/-, Rs.2,54,480/ and Rs.3,09,237/- respectively under Statute 28-A read with Central University Retirement Benefit Rules, 1967 and CCS Pension Rules, i.e., as per the provisions of payment of gratuity applicable to the petitioner.

6. Respondent No. 2 is the Controlling Authority of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, before whom respondent no. 1 of the above-noted petitions have filed an application in the year 2013 for grant of difference of gratuity amount claiming under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The said respondent passed an imugned order dated 30.09.2013 holding thereby that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the petitioners and thus respondent no. 1 in the petitions noted above were found entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,44,808/-, Rs.59,943/-, Rs.92,537/- and Rs.40,763/-respectively towards the balance gratuity. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount with simple interest @ 10% per annum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Controlling Authority before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2014.

8. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that under Section 2 (E) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 it is described as under: “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.”

9. Ld. Counsel submits that Section14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable