The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory entitlements under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must be strictly upheld, and any private agreements cannot override the benefits provided by the Act.

In this writ petition, the petitioner Bank has challenged an order of the first respondent made in Gratuity Appeal No.307 of 2003, dated 24. 2005.

2. The third respondent made an application before the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chennai in G.A.No.32 of 1997 under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming difference of gratuity amount of Rs.85,400/-along with interest. On enquiry, the Controlling Authority has passed an order in favour of the third respondent employee. Aggrieved the management Bank took it on appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the order of the Controlling Authority was affirmed. Not satisfied with the same, the management has brought forth this writ petition before this court.

.3. What was all contended by the Management before the authorities below and equally here also is that the third respondent joined the Bank in the year 1957 and he retired as an Officer on 31.05.1994; that as per Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he was paid Gratuity amount of Rs.1 lakh, which was the maximum Gratuity payable as per the provisions of the Act on the date of his retirement and the same is also beneficial to him. On 23. 1995, a settlement was arrived at between the Indian Banks Association representing the Management and the Apex level Officers Association. According to that settlement, salary revision alone was given with retrospective effect from 7. 1993 and that the third respondent was accordingly paid the arrears of salary consequent upon the revision with effect from 7. 1993 till the date of his retirement, namely 35. 1994. So far as the Gratuity was concerned, no question of revision would arise, since the cut-off date that was given was from 11. 1994 and the third respondent retired on 35. 1994 and hence, he was not entitled to the difference of Gratuity amount, though he was entitled to difference of salary, which was given to him and under these circumstances, the Authorities below have not looked into either the factual or legal positions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that so far as the different cut-off dates for the salary and Gratuity was concerned, it was challenged by the various employees similarly placed like the third respondent in this court in W.P.No.7365 of 1999 along with batch of cases. This court has upheld the cut off date 11. 1994 for Gratuity. Under these circumstances, the third respondent, who retired even prior to the date, namely 11. 1994, was not entitled to have any claim over the difference in Gratuity. Hence, the orders of the authorities below have got to be quashed.

.5. In answer to the above, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the instant case, the third respondent was entitled to have the benefit of the same; that it is true, he retired on 35. 1994; that there was a settlement on 23. 1995, pursuant to which he was entitled not only the difference in arrears of salary, but also the Gratuity also; that so far as the arrears of salary was concerned, it was given from 7. 1993 till 35. 1994; that the contentions put forth by the petitioners side that the cut-off date so far as the Gratuity was concerned was from 11. 1994 and hence, he was not entitled for the same and the cut-off date 11. 1994 for Gratuity was upheld by this court in the writ petition, referred to above, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the persons, who actually sought for the relief earlier, were not employees, since the amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act came into force from 25. 1994 and thus, he could be strictly termed as an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which was amended in 1994 and hence, the decisions, which was canvassed by the petitioner cannot be of any avail to this case and therefore, it is a case where the authorities below have gone into the legal positions and have ordered so and hence, th