The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act is competent to entertain disputes when the employer's regulations do not provide for adjudication of gratuity disputes. The definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972 includes individuals not governed by Central or State Government rules for gratuity payment.

1. Memo of appearance filed by Sri Prem Shankar Prasad on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at the admission stage itself without calling for the counter affidavit.

4. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 20/23.4.2018 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Allahabad i.e. the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1972").

5. The arguments of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners are two folds. Firstly, he has submitted that the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972 was not competent to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent no. 3 inasmuch as, the provisions pertaining to Payment of Gratuity Act are covered by the Regulation 72 of the Regulations namely Purvanchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations, 2010"), framed for the purpose of regulating the services of officers and employees of the bank.

6. With reference to the sub-regulation (1) and (2) of Regulation 72, it is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that payment of gratuity to the employees and Officers of the bank is being made under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 72 which contains much more flexible and better conditions than that provided under the provisions of the Act, 1972.

7. As the regulations governing payment of gratuity is framed by the petitioner/bank, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act was not empowered to entertain the dispute.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 being an employee of the petitioner/bank is not covered within the meaning of employee under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972 inasmuch as, the Central Government has all control over the post held by the petitioners.

9. With reference to Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1976"), it is contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the terms and conditions of appointment and services of staff of the Regional Rural Banks are determined by the Central Government and it has all control over the services of the officer and employees of the bank and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 would not be an 'employee' covered by the definition under the Act, 1972.

10. Dealing with this submission of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, it would be relevant to note that under the Regulations, 2010 framed by the Bank for regulating the services of officers and employees of the bank, there is no provision to deal with the situation where a dispute is raised by an employee regarding determination of the amount of gratuity or withholding thereof.

11. The relevant regulation 72 of Regulations, 2010 reads as under:-

"72. Gratuity - (1) An officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) or as per sub-regulation (2), whichever is higher.

(2) Every officer or employee shall be eligible for gratuity on:-

(a) retirement.

(b) death.

(c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank.

(d) resignation after completing 10 years of continuous service.

(e) termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service:

Provided that in respect of an employee there shall be no forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on account of misconduct except in cases where such misconduct causes financial loss to the bank and in that case