The main legal point established in the judgment is the overriding effect of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, over other enactments, and the requirement of continuous service for the payment of gratuity.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on India, is filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority, under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) in Appeal No. 108 of 2022, wherein the appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging the order of Controlling Authority in Gratuity Case No. 51 of 2019 has been rejected. The Petition also challenges the order of Controlling Authority, Morbi dated 25.09.2019, wherein the Petitioner has been directed to pay the difference of gratuity along with interest @ 10%, within 30 days, from the date of their retirement.

2. The facts in brief are as under: -

(i) The Petitioner – Morbi Municipality is constituted under the provisions of Gujarat Municipality Act for carrying out the work, particularly of the maintenance and hygiene of the city. It engaged several workmen on daily wage basis. The Respondent herein was engaged as daily-wager in the year 1984 and her service was regularized on 01.07.1989. She, upon attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30.04.2015. It is case of the Petitioner that upon her retirement she was paid gratuity amount as per the records of Municipality for qualifying service as per Section 81(1)(A) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002.

(ii) It is further case of the Petitioner that the Respondent – workmen filed a claim application under Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Gujarat) Rules, 1973 in form N and the same came to be numbered as Gratuity Case No. 51 of 2019. It was case of the Respondent – workmen in Gratuity Case No. 51 of 2019 that she is entitled for gratuity from the date of her initial appointment as daily-wager from the year 1984 and the amount of gratuity is to be paid accordingly. The Controlling Authority, Morbi under order dated 25.09.2019, held that the Petitioner is entitled for payment of Rs.61,539/- towards gratuity. The Controlling Authority took into consideration 31 years of continuous service for calculating the amount of gratuity and after deducting the amount of gratuity paid earlier, directed the Petitioner to pay the difference amount of Rs.61,539/-. The amount of gratuity was further directed to be paid along with interest @ 10% from the date of retirement.

(iii) Aggrieved by the order of Controlling Authority dated 25.09.2019 the Petitioner preferred appeal challenging the said order. The Appellate Authority, under order dated 30.01.2023, rejected the appeal of the Petitioner (Gratuity Appeal No. 108 of 2022), confirming the order of Controlling Authority. Aggrieved by both the orders dated 25.09.2019 (Controlling Authority) and 30.01.2023 (Appellate Authority) present Petition is filed.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak Sanchela for the Petitioner. He made following submissions: -

(i) This is second round of litigation.

(ii) Referring to the earlier order of this Court dated 09.02.2023, Learned Advocate submitted that as contended by the Petitioner- Municipality that under provisions of the Act, the period where the Respondent – workmen had worked as daily-wager and the period where the Respondent – workmen was placed in regular pay scale is to be bifurcated for the purpose of calculating the gratuity amount and as the same was not done, this Court in order dated 09.02.2023, in Special Civil Application No. 14494 of 2022 and allied matters remanded the matter restoring it to the file of Controlling Authority, Morbi. He relied upon paragraphs Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the decision dated 09.02.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 14494 of 2022.

(iii) Relying upon another decision dated 20.12.2021, in Special Civil Application No. 2225 of 2021 and allied writ petitions, he submitted that the co-ordinate bench of this Court taking into consideration the details given with regard to each of workmen, directed the Controlling Authority to decide the issue afresh. Relying upon a table referred at Paragraph 5 of the said decision, he submitted that the Petition