IMPORTANT POINT
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 overrides contractual agreements, ensuring gratuity eligibility is determined by statutory provisions rather than settlement terms.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the employer questioning the findings rendered by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the “Act”) as confirmed by the appellate authority under the statute.

2. The short facts as culled out from W.P. (C) No. 32886 of 2018 are as under:

The petitioner is a Public Sector undertaking under the Government of Kerala. The 1st respondent was employed as a supplier in a canteen run by the petitioner with reference to the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act. The 1st respondent was absorbed in the regular service of the petitioner company pursuant to a memorandum of settlement arrived at between the petitioner company (employer) and the workmen. A perusal of Ext.P2 would show that the canteen was established in 1959 and was being managed by a committee consisting of two representatives of the company and the canteen workers union.

Pursuant to the settlement arrived at, the canteen workers were taken in the rolls of the petitioner company as seen from clause 1 of Ext.P2. Clauses 5 and 6 of Ext.P2 to the extent applicable herein read as under:

“5. For the purpose of Gratuity, their services in the Canteen as specified in the Annexure ‘C’ will be reckoned.

6. The existing Agreement with the Unions expired on 26.7.1990. The policy decision to departmentalise the Canteen was taken on 20.4.1991. Accordingly, it was decided to absorb them in Company’s rolls from 1.4.1991. For their services from 27.7.1990 to 31.3.1991, the Unions demanded a lumpsum payment as ex-gratia and it was decided to give to those Canteen workers who were confirmed on or before 31.7.1990 a lumpsum amount equal to 15% of their respective salary as on 1.8.1990 (i.e. Basic Pay Plus D.A.) per month for 10 months (that is to say, equivalent to one and a half months’ salary as on 1.8.1990).”

It is on the basis of Ext.P2, that the 1st respondent herein stood absorbed in the service of the petitioner company. However, a perusal of Annexure C forming part of Ext.P2 shows that the date of joining as regards the 1st respondent is reckoned as 24.10.1989.

3. On the basis of the above, the 1st respondent joined the service of the petitioner company and superannuated on 20.01.2013. He was paid gratuity reckoning the service from 1989, and this is not disputed.

4. Later, the 1st respondent took up a stand that he was entitled for more gratuity than already paid. The matter was considered by the authority under the Act along with similar claims raised by the 1st respondents in the connected writ petitions. The 1st respondents took up a stand that their gratuity entitlement is to be reckoned not with reference to the dates noticed in Annexure C forming part of Ext.P2 and that the eligibility is to be reckoned with reference to 21.06.1979 on which date the 1st respondent in W.P. (C) No. 32886 of 2018, joined the service of the petitioner. As regards the 1st respondent in W.P. (C) No. 32905 of 2018, he took up the stand that his eligibility also is to be reckoned from 23.06.1979, whereas in W.P. (C) No. 32888 of 2018, the 1st respondent sought the benefits from 20.6.1979, the date on which, he joined service.

5. The authority under the statute, by Ext.P5 proceedings found that the stand of the petitioner company that the date as shown in Annexure C forming part of Ext.P2 having been accepted by the Union is the final date which is to be acted upon, does not merit consideration. The authority found that there was no signature of any of the parties mentioned in Annexure C in Ext.P2 and therefore, the normal presumption was that the parties have not accepted the date adopted by the Management. The authority also found that the documents produced from the side of the 1st respondent established that the respective dates of entry in service have also been admitted by the witness on behalf of the Management. Ultimately, the authority by Ext.P5 order directed the payment of more amounts t