Full quit receipts issued by employees voluntarily and without any protest are valid and not hit by Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as they are not agreements or contracts inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is for quashing the order of the first respondent dated October 20, 1986 in P. G. Nos. 5 to 9 of 1986 and to direct the second respondent to pay the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that originally they including the deceased V. Pitchai (3rd Petitioner) retired from service from Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mill Limited (Now under Liquidation ). They have been working continuously without any interruption. Hence they were entitled for gratuity. The third respondent paid the amounts based on their arbitrary and illegal a calculations. Taking advantage of their superior and dominating position subsequently, the Labour Union Leaders advised them that the payment of gratuity was not in conformity with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Management deleted certain years of service in total years of service on the ground that they did not work for 240 days in those years. Hence the petitioners filed claim petition before the second respondent. The third respondent contended that the gratuity paid to them was in full quit receipts Hence. They were precluded from claiming any further amounts. The second respondent directed the third respondent to pay the balance of gratuity to the petitioners. The third respondent filed appeals before the first respondent. By a common order dated October 26, 1986 the first respondent allowed the appeals on the ground that having passed full quit receipts, the petitioners were estopped from claiming any further amount. The order of the first respondent is illegal. During the pendency of the appeal, the third respondent company went into liquidation. The Official Liquidator, High Court has taken charge. Hence the writ petition is for the relief mentioned above.

( 3 ) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the first respondent has seriously erred bolding that the receipts were issued by the petitioners in full quit of their claim and they are estopped in law. He further contended that the management has erred in computing the 240 days in a particular year and t deleting some years for calculating the total years of service.

( 5 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the receipts issued by the petitioners stating to be in full quit and Settlement of their claims cannot be construed to operate as estoppel against the petitioners for claiming further amounts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Section 17 (1) (2) and (3) of the Act are mandatory provisions. Section 7 (2) (b) of the Act is mandatory in nature the employer is bound to determine the amount of gratuity and arrange to pay them within the time prescribed. Section 14 of the payment of Gratuity Act 1972, is very relevant. It is as follows : "the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in to any enactment other than this Act, or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. "

( 6 ) RELYING upon the said Section, learned if, counsel for the petitioners contends that the receipts issued by the petitioners are mere agreements to receive the amounts. Hence they cannot override the provisions of Section 7 (2) and (3) of the Act. The agreements which are receipts agreeing to receive lesser amounts are agreement, contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, because when the provisions contemplate higher amount agreeing to receive the lesser amount is hit by Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

( 7 ) AS per the said Section anything inconsistent contained in any enactment or in any instrument or contract shall be superseded by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In the instant case, the employees uniformly admitted in the cross examination tha