SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSH BUNGER, J.
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sukhjeet Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 5407 of 2018
Decided On : 05-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must include entire continuous service, including stop-gap employment, unless exempted by the appropriate Government.

Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 2(a), 4, 7, and 14 - Writ petition filed against orders of Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority regarding gratuity payment - Respondent entitled to gratuity for entire service period, including stop-gap service, as no break in service was established - Authorities correctly applied the Act, and interest on delayed payment was mandated. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15)

(B) Statutory Rights - Gratuity is a statutory right under the Act, and cannot be denied unless exemption is granted by the appropriate Government - Continuous service must be counted for gratuity calculation irrespective of the nature of employment. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the orders granting gratuity to respondent who claimed entitlement for her entire service period of over 35 years, while petitioners contended only 25 years should be counted due to prior stop-gap employment. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the orders of the authorities, confirming the respondent's entitlement to gratuity for her entire service period and the statutory obligation to pay interest on delayed gratuity. (Paras 11, 15)

Issues: Whether the entire service period of the respondent should be counted for gratuity calculation and the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the petitioners. (Paras 3, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondent's continuous service, including stop-gap employment, qualifies her for gratuity under the Act, emphasizing the overriding effect of the Act and the statutory nature of gratuity payments. (Paras 10, 11)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harsh Bunger, J.

Petitioners-Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and others have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing an order dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 as well as order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. Briefly, respondent No.1 (Sukhjeet Kaur) filed an application (Annexure P-3) before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 seeking a direction to the petitioners-University to pay gratuity to her. As per respondent No.1 (Sukhjeet Kaur), she was an employee of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and she retired from service on 31.07.2014 after completion of 35 years, 6 months and 13 days of continuous service. She claimed that she joined the University as daily paid worker on 19.01.1979 up to 06.05.1980 and thereafter, she worked as Sports Attendant up to 31.07.2014. Respondent No.1 claimed that she was not paid full gratuity as per her due entitlement and she was paid gratuity amount of Rs.4,70,207/- by counting her service as 25 years, 6 months and 7 days. Respondent No.1 claimed that the petitioners-University had wrongly ignored her service of more than 10 years and had withheld the balance gratuity amount without assigning any reason, accordingly, claim for gratuity was made.

3. On the other hand, the claim for the gratuity amount by respondent No.1 (Sukhjeet Kaur) was contested by the petitioners-University by submitting that respondent No.1 has rendered service only for 25 years, 6 months and 7 days and for the said period, the gratuity amount already stands paid. It was submitted that as per the rules and regulations of the Punjab Agricultural University, there was no provision to count the service of stop gap basis on which respondent No.1 was kept. It was also submitted that the service of respondent No.1 was covered under Punjab Civil Services Rules which are applicable to the Punjab Agricultural University, accordingly, respondent No.1 was entitled to gratuity as per the Funds and Pension Rules of the Punjab Agricultural University and her case was not covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was stated that prior to 24.01.1989, respondent No.1 was appointed in the department on stop gap basis and her services were regularized on 25.01.1989. It was further stated that respondent No.1 was not entitled to any gratuity, for the period she worked on daily wage basis w.e.f. 19.01.1979 to 06.05.1980. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the claim of respondent No.1 was made.

4. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide the order dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) allowed the claim of respondent No.1 and she was held entitled to gratuity amount of Rs.8,34,486/-. It was clarified that the gratuity amount of Rs.4,70,207/- has already been received by respondent No.1, accordingly, balance gratuity amount of Rs. 3,64,279/- was liable to be paid to her.

5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the petitioners herein, filed a Statutory Appeal under section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, however, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-6) by holding as under:-

    "8. From the perusal of above Clause of the ibid Act, I am of the considered view that for calculating gratuity, entire service rendered by an employee is required to be counted irrespective of the effect whether it is on adhoc basis, stop gap arrangement or otherwise, if it is uninterrupted the entire service to be counted for determining gratuity under the ibid Act. Therefore, the respondent employee is entitled to gratuity for the period from 19/01/1989 to 31/07/2014.

    9. In view of the above discussion the order of the Controlling Authority dated 13.12.2016 is p

                                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                1
                                2
                                3
                                4
                                5
                                6
                                7
                                8
                                9
                                10
                                11
                                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                supreme today icon
                                logo-black

                                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                Please visit our Training & Support
                                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                qr

                                Scan Me!

                                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                whatsapp-icon Back to top