JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Petitioners have challenged award dated 20.12.2017 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, J&K, Srinagar, whereby respondent No.2 has been held entitled to an amount of Rs.7,12,028/ on account of gratuity and a direction has been issued to the petitioners to deposit the balance amount of Rs.4,62,028/ with the Tribunal for its disbursement and payment to the respondent No.2.

2. The facts emerging from the record are that respondent No.2 was an employee of the Jammu and Kashmir State Industrial Corporation (for short SIDCO) and he superannuated on 31st of May, 2006. He was granted six months extension and he finally retired on 30th November, 2006. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, respondent No.2 was paid gratuity in the amount of Rs.2.50 lacs by his employer i.e., petitioner Corporation. Besides this, he was also paid leave salary and other retiral benefits after his superannuation.

3. It appears that in the year 2012, respondent No.2 approached J&K Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by way of an application in terms of Section 33(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act for seeking recovery of balance amount of gratuity dues. According to respondent No.2, applicant before the Tribunal, he was paid gratuity in the amount of Rs.2.50 lacs whereas, as per the prevailing rule position, he was entitled to payment of Rs.3.50 lacs on account of gratuity in terms of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the petitioner Corporation. Thus, applicant-respondent No.2 sought payment of balance amount of gratuity amounting to Rs.1.00 lac along with litigation charges and interest. It further emerges from the record that during the pendency of the said application, an amended application was made by applicant-respondent No.2 wherein it was claimed that he was entitled to an amount of Rs.10.00 lacs as gratuity in view of changed rule position.

4. The application was resisted by the petitioners/non-applicants by filing objections thereto. In their objections it was claimed by the petitioner Corporation that the respondent No.2 has retired from service in the year 2006 and the gratuity ceiling at the relevant time was Rs.2.50/ lacs which was enhanced to Rs.3.50 lacs in the year 2008. According to petitioner Corporation, the order of enhancement of gratuity has not been given retrospective effect by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

5. The Tribunal considered the material on record and vide the impugned award/order dated 20.12.2017, it came to the conclusion that the J&K Civil Service Regulations, so far as the same relate to payment of gratuity, are applicable to the employees of the petitioner Corporation and with the amendment of these Regulations in terms of SRO 94 dated 15th April, 2009, the overall ceiling of death-cum-retirement gratuity has been enhanced to Rs.10.00 lacs w.e.f. 01.01.2006. On this basis, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for the petitioner Corporation to withhold the enhanced amount of gratuity to respondent No.2 as he has retired after 01.01.2006.

6. The aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal has been impugned by the petitioner Corporation by way of instant writ petition on the grounds that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the gratuity claim of respondent No.2 as the said respondent has already received all his retiral benefits as were admissible to him under rules and regulations of the Corporation; that respondent No.2 was working in a Managerial capacity in the petitioner Corporation, as such, he does not fall within the definition of “Workman” as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, as such, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain claim of respondent No. 2; that the petitioner Corporation is governed by its own rules and regulations as also the decisions of its Board of Directors, therefore, provisions of Civil Service