JUDGMENT :

Applications for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the impugned judgment:

1. Since the certified copy of the impugned common judgment is in the main matter, production of such certified copy in these appeals is dispensed with.

2. The applications are disposed of.

Special Appeals (Writ):

3. These appeals arising out of a common background.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank pointed out that the controversy is covered by the Division Bench judgment dated 05.01.2022 in the case of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Jodhpur v. The Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and others (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 561/2020, decided on 05.01.2022). We notice that the said judgment the Division Bench had held and observed as under:

"23. It can thus be seen that there is a clear divide between the judicial opinions across the country. We would have due regard to the different view points, analysis and interpretations adopted by different Courts in the process of taking our own view in the matter. A brief comparison of the computation provisions under the Act of 1972 and the regulations would show that under the Act of 1972, the gratuity is payable at the rate of 15 days of wages for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months. This however comes with the ceiling, as may be provided by the Central Government from time to time, which at the relevant time was Rs. 10 lacs. As against this, in terms of Regulation 72(3), the gratuity would be payable at the rate of one month pay for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months. This would be subject to maximum of 15 months' pay. As per the proviso, for every completed year of service beyond 30 years, an additional amount at the rate of one half of month's pay would be paid. Significantly, there is no upper limit of gratuity that my be paid under Regulation 72.

24. The fact that despite framing of the said Regulations by the Bank, if the employee tends to receive higher gratuity under the Act of 1972, the same must be paid is beyond dispute. As noted, as per Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act of 1972, nothing in the said Section would effect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. Section 14 of the Act as noted gives overriding effect to the Act over other enactments. Even Regulation 72(1) provides that an officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the Act of 1972 or as per Sub-regulation (2) whichever is higher. Thus, it is beyond doubt that an employee must receive gratuity whichever is more beneficial either under the Act of 1972 or under the Regulations framed by the bank. However, this is not the same thing as to suggest that an employee can choose computation of gratuity under one statute and seek benefits of other provisions under another statute. As we have noticed, the scheme of gratuity under the Act of 1972 and under the regulations framed by the bank are different. For example, the Act of 1972 prescribes the ceiling beyond which the gratuity would not be paid irrespective of the computation. There is no such ceiling prescribed under the regulations. However, the regulations have other inherent limitations in computation of gratuity such as the gratuity computation would not exceed 15 months' salary upto 30 years of service, after which an additional benefit of half month's salary would be added to the payable gratuity. The employee, therefore, can claim gratuity either under the Act of 1972 or under the regulations framed by the bank, but cannot claim the benefit under both the statutes. Though, reference to no authorities is needed for this purpose, as correctly pointed out by the counsel for the bank, this has been held by the Supreme Court in clear terms in the case of Beed District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 8 SCC 514].

25