The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory compulsion of payment of gratuity with interest, the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement with the employer, and the rejection of the University's objections and exemption claim.

GITA MITTAL, J.

1. The appellant /University of Delhi assails the orders dated 13th August, 2013 & 12th May, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the order dated 9th October, 2012 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. Inasmuch as, identical questions of law arise on similar facts, we are taking up these appeals together for the purposes of adjudication. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the case. The facts giving rise to the petitions are in a narrow compass and to the extent necessary are noted hereunder.

3. It is undisputed that both the respondents before us are the retired employees of the appellant/University of Delhi. The appellant/University of Delhi has disputed the applicability of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the organisation for the reason that it has its own Gratuity Scheme under the Delhi University Act and Statutes and ordinances notified thereunder. The respondent/Kanwar Kumar Gambhir in LPA 810/2013 consequently was compelled to move an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to claim payment of gratuity on account of his superannuation/retirement on 30th June, 2004 after completion of service of about 37 years w.e.f. 25th November, 1967 to 30th June, 2004 as Senior Technical Officer, Department of Zoology on attaining the age of 60 years on superannuation. So far as the respondent/Surinder Kumar in LPA 538/2014 was concerned, he was also compelled to approach the Competent Authority to claim the payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on account of his superannuation/retirement on 30th September, 2007 after completion of service of about 40 years and 9 months w.e.f. 03.12.1966 to 30.09.2007 as Section Officer, Department of Social Work, University of Delhi on attaining the age of 60 years of superannuation.

4. The appellant/University of Delhi rejected the applications on the main plea of denial of applicability of statute and also that the claims of the respondents were time barred. The appellant/University of Delhi took another plea that it had sought exemption of applicability of the payment of gratuity, therefore it is curtailed under Section (2) of Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 from the Government of India. Before the Controlling Authority, the matters had to proceed to evidence. Thereafter, placing reliance on several judicial precedents of this court, as well as the Supreme Court of India, the Controlling Authority passed orders arriving at the conclusion that respondent/Kanwar Kumar Gambhir was entitled to total amount of Rs.4,30,958/- towards gratuity with interest and that as the amount of Rs.3,33,107 stood already paid to him, he was entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 97851/- . It was accordingly directed that this amount would be paid with simple interest @ 10% per annum in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 from the date on which gratuity became due and payable to the respondent.

5. So far as respondent/ Surinder Kumar is concerned by an order of the even date, i.e. by order dated 9th October, 2012, the Controlling Authority concluded that respondent/ Surinder Kumar was entitled for a total sum of Rs.5,48,390 towards gratuity. An amount of Rs.3,69,621 stood paid to him leaving an amount of Rs.1,78,770 as balance amount of gratuity with simple interest @ 10% per annum as per provisions of sub-section (3-A) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, from the date on which gratuity became due and payable to the respondent.

6. We note that as far as, the payment of gratuity is concerned, the Controlling Authority has relied upon the following directives of the Supreme Court of India dated 5th February, 2003 in SLP (Civil) No. 4114/2002, tilted as S. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited:

“.......Payment of gra