The Gratuity Act provides overriding rights for gratuity claims that cannot be denied unless specifically exempted by law, even when alternative welfare benefits exist.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

These appeals arise from a common judgment dated 13.03.2024 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.37503, 35649, and 36325 of 2022. Appellants were the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions. Since common questions arise for consideration in these Writ Appeals, they are heard and disposed of together. W.A.No.951 of 2024 is treated as the lead case for easy reference to the facts and exhibits.

2. Appellants, who are retired abkari workers of the 1^st respondent Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd., had filed the Writ Petitions airing their common grievance that the 1^st respondent Corporation had declined them gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Gratuity Act”), for the purported reason that terminal benefits were already being paid to them by the 3^rd respondent, viz., Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board (KAWWF). The following prayers were sought in the Writ Petitions:

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay gratuity to all the petitioners herein as eligible under Rule 76 of the Service Rules of the Corporation, forthwith ;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order declaring that abkari workers are entitled to get gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and under Rule 76 of the Service Rules of the 1^st respondent Corporation ;(iii) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced by the petitioner in this case ; and

(iv) such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C)s inter alia holding that if the contentions of the appellants are accepted, the same would amount to double payment of gratuity, i.e., one under the Welfare Fund and the other under the Gratuity Act, thus leading to unlawful enrichment. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of their Writ Petitions, the appellants are before us in appeal.

4. Heard Sri.Deepu Thankan, Advocate on behalf of the appellants, Sri.Naveen T., Advocate, Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.S.Krishnanmoorthy, Advocate for the 3^rd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is not sustainable for multiple reasons. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that an employee governed by any other Act or Rules providing for payment of gratuity is not an ‘employee’ within the definition of the Gratuity Act is erroneous. Reliance is placed on the definition of ‘employee’ under Section 2 (e) of the Gratuity Act, and it is contended that the exclusion applies only to persons who hold a post under the Central Government or State Government and are governed by any other Act or Rules providing for payment of gratuity. It is submitted that it is clear from the said definition that an employee under the respondent Corporation would not be excluded from the ambit of the said term and would undoubtedly come within the meaning of the term employee under the Gratuity Act, as the respondent Corporation cannot be subsumed within the words Central Government or State Government.

6. Relying on Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, it is submitted that the said provision lends an overriding effect to the Act over any other inconsistent provision in any other enactment. Merely for the reason that the employees of the 1^strespondent Corporation, like the appellants, received benefits under the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAWWF Act'), the same will not by itself disentitle them from