Consolidated pay does not exempt employees from gratuity rights under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; entitlement extends to all employees as defined.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2538/2018/PAS dated 05.08.2019 and directing the respondents to pay the terminal benefits including the gratuity for the period of service rendered by the petitioner as saleswoman in the third respondent cooperative society from 08.01.1985 to 10.09.1989.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a saleswoman in the 3^rd respondent society through employment exchange in the year 1985. The appointment of the petitioner is the regular one and not through any back door. The petitioner was working as sales woman from 08.01.1985 to 10.08.1989 in the 3^rd respondent co-operative credit society. On 12.08.1989, the petitioner was transferred from the 3^rd respondent co-operative credit society to the 2^nd respondent co-operative credit society vide order dated 10.08.1989 in Na Ka.No.11/1989 on the file of 3^rd respondent. Since the date of transfer, the petitioner continued to work as a saleswoman in the 2^nd respondent co-operative credit society till her superannuation. The petitioner attained her age of superannuation on 31.10.2018 and she was permitted to retire by the 2^nd respondent society with effect from 31.10.2018. The terminal benefits including gratuity to the tune of Rs.10,34,292/- was granted to the petitioner. However the gratuity was not paid for the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 08.01.1985 to 10.08.1989 and was rejected by the first respondent vide order in Na.Ka.No.2538/2018/PAS dated 05.08.2019. Hence the writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while computing and disbursing the terminal benefits due to the petitioner, the respondents failed to compute the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 08.01.1985 to 10.08.1989 i.e, for four years ten days in the 3^rd respondent society and granted the terminal benefits including gratuity to the tune of Rs.10,34,292/- (Rupees ten lakhs and thirty four thousand and two hundred and ninety two only). The terminal benefits including the amount of gratuity were not computed including the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the 3^rd respondent co-operative credit society from 08.01.1985 to 10.08.1989. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the 1^st respondent requesting him to pay the terminal benefits including gratuity by computing the service period from 08.01.1985 to 10.08.1989.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the 1^st respondent had received the said representation and passed the impugned order in Na.Ka. No.2538/2018/PAS dated 05.08.2019, thereby rejecting the request of the petitioner stating that the petitioner was under consolidated pay of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) during the period from 08.01.1985 to 10.08.1989 and therefore no provision has been made by the 3^rd respondent for payment of gratuity to the employees working under consolidated pay. The impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner is per se arbitrary and illegal.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the Payment of gratuity Act is applicable to all employees and it does not make any distinction or differentiation of persons working under the timescale of pay and under consolidated pay. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's claim for the gratuity by the 1^st respondent on the ground that she was working under consolidated pay during the relevant period from 08.01.1985 to