In Perspective:

A retired employee complains that he is not paid the gratuity in full; first, he receives some amount, later complains he must be paid more amount; then, the employer pays some more. Yet, the employee gripes that still some more remains. In this process about four years lapses. Finally, he petitions the Lok Ayukta. Both the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Lok Ayukta Act provide remedies, but in different time frames. The petitioner does not invoke the Payment of Gratuity Act, for it seems to have been barred by time. So he stakes his claim under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, which seems to have not shut the doors. In this context, the issues are these:

(1) Are these two enactments mutually exclusive or, differently put, does the Payment of Gratuity Act, a special act, prevail over the Kerala Lok Ayukat Act, a general one, given a conflict?

(2) Is there an element of repugnancy between the Payment of Gratuity Act, a central enactment, and the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, the state enactment?

(3) Has the petitioner's claim, as held by the Lok Ayukta, barred by limitation?

Facts in Brief:

2. The petitioner, after serving the second respondent Bank for 32 years, retired on 3