IMPORTANT POINT
The employer has the discretion to provide better terms of gratuity to its employees, and employees cannot claim better benefits as of right.

1. The petitioner is an Association of retired employees of the Respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner, there is discrimination in the matter of payment of gratuity on the retirement of its members on the ground that the benefit of increase of ceiling limit of gratuity amount in Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 from Rs. 3.5 Lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs as per the Amendment dated 24.5.2010 was not extended to them, though the same was extended to the employees of several state owned companies, PSUs and Central Government employees giving retrospective effect of the Amendment dated 24.5.2010 from 1.1.2006 and 1.1.2007. They were paid gratuity on the basis of un-amended Section 4(3) which fixed the ceiling limit at Rs. 3.5 lakhs.

2. The petitioner Association submitted Exts.P4 and P6 Representations before the Respondent No. 1 in the matter. Since no action was taken by the Respondent No. 1, the petitioner approached this Court and as per Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed the Respondent No. 1 to consider Exts.P4 and P6 Representations and in compliance with the directions in Ext.P8 judgment, the Respondent No. 1 passed Ext.P9 order, but rejecting the claim of the petitioner Association. According to the petitioner, it has filed Ext.P10 Review Petition seeking to review Ext.P9, the same is pending consideration before the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 has been refusing to dispose of Ext.P10 Review Petition. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P9 order, to direct the Respondents to sanction Twenty Months' salary as gratuity to the employees of the Respondent No. 3 retrospectively as in the case of PSUs like Exts.P1 and P2, seeking direction to consider Ext.P10 Review Petition and for other reliefs.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

4. The issue to be decided in this Writ Petition is, whether the members of the petitioner Association are entitled to get the benefit of the Amendment dated 24.5.2010 to Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, increasing the ceiling limit from Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner Association retired before the date of implementation of the said Amendment. So, the members of the petitioner were paid gratuity in accordance with the un-amended provision.

5. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that several state owned companies, PSUs and Central Government employees have given the benefit of the Amendment retrospectively with effect from 1.1.2006 and 1.1.2007. He referred to Exts.P1 and P2 in this regard with respect to two of such establishments. According to him, the Respondent No. 3, though fully owned, controlled and managed by the Respondent No. 1/State and a public Sector Undertaking, has discriminated the members of the petitioner Association in the matter of granting the benefit of the Amendment increasing the ceiling limit of gratuity to Rs. 10 lakhs. The Representations submitted by the petitioner were rejected by Ext.P9 order by the Respondent No. 1 without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner and hence he prayed for direction to extend the benefits of Amendment to the members of the petitioner Association or direction to consider Ext.P10 Petition for Review.

6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 defended the case arguing that the members of the petitioner who were retired from the service of the Respondent No. 3 are not entitled to claim gratuity on a scale brought into force by Amendment after their retirement and those persons were paid gratuity as per the law which was existing as on the dates of their respective dates of retirement. The Respondent No. 3 is not bound by the action on the part of other establishments extending better terms of gratuity to their employees. He relied on Section 4 (5) of