Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Bareilly Nagar Nigam – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sudama And Others – Respondents
WRIT C No. 14272, 14156, 14274, 14276, 14278, 14280, 14281, 14282, 14284, 14285, 14286 of 2012
Decided On : 13-11-2019
For the Petitioner: Anil Tiwari, Satyam Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to municipal corporations, emphasizing that the workmen could not opt for both the terms of the statute and those of the contract.
Headnote:
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Applicability to Municipal Corporations - Section 1(3)(c), Section 4(5) - The court upheld the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to Bareilly Nagar Nigam, rejecting the argument that the Act was not applicable. The court cited Section 1(3)(c) and Section 4(5) of the Act, emphasizing that the workmen could not opt for both the terms of the statute and those of the contract, and clarified that the claim of the workmen under the Act shall be confined to the benefit admissible therein. The judgment dated 04.04.2011 was inter partes and had attained finality, and the order dated 04.02.2012 was passed in pursuance of the observations made in the said judgment, thus cannot be faulted with.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directing payment of the balance amount of gratuity to the workmen. The petitioner, Bareilly Nagar Nigam, contended that the Act was not applicable to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was applicable to Bareilly Nagar Nigam and upheld the order of the Controlling Authority directing payment of the balance amount of gratuity to the workmen.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to Bareilly Nagar Nigam.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 1(3)(c) and Section 4(5) of the Act to establish the applicability of the Act to the petitioner and emphasized that the workmen could not opt for both the terms of the statute and those of the contract.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. These petitions have been filed seeking to challenge a common order dated 04.02.2012 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 [the P.G. Act, 1972]/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Bareilly in Case Nos.138/P.G.A./2004, 139/P.G.A./2004, 140/P.G.A./2004, 141/P.G.A./2004, 143/P.G.A./2004, 147/P.G.A./2004, 148/P.G.A./2004, 149/P.G.A./2004, 151/P.G.A./2004, 159/P.G.A./2004 and 160/P.G.A./2004. The necessary particulars in this regard are as follows:
| Serial Numbers | Writ Petitions | Parties | Particulars of the cases before the Controlling Authority |
| 1 | Writ-C No.14272 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Smt. Sudama & Ors. | Case No.139/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 2 | Writ-C No.14156 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam through its Municipal Commissioner Vs. Fatima Begum & Ors. | Case No.140/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 3 | Writ-C No.14274 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Munni Devi & Ors. | Case No.147/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 4 | Writ-C No.14276 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Masih Charan & Anr. | Case No.151/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 5 | Writ C No.14278 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Sushila & Ors. | Case No.149/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 6 | Writ-C No.14280 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Kamla & Anr. | Case No.143/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 7 | Writ-C No.14281 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Chanda & Anr. | Case No.138/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 8 | Writ-C No.14282 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Naresh Chand Saxena & Anr. | Case No.141/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 9 | Writ-C No.14284 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Duli & Ors. | Case No.148/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 10 | Writ-C No.14285 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Ramvati & Ors. | Case No.151/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
| 11 | Writ-C No.14286 of 2012 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam Vs. Raman Lal & Anr. | Case No.159/P.G.A./2004/04.02.2012 |
3. The writ petitions being based on similar set of facts, with the consent of parties, are being taken up and decided together.
4. Writ C No.14272 of 2012, has been treated to be the leading petition, wherein the order dated 04.02.2012 passed by the Controlling Authority in Case No.139/P.G.A./2004 (decided alongwith the connected matters), is under challenge.
5. The records of the case indicate that upon an application filed by the respondent-workmen, Case No.139/P.G.A./2004 was registered before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Bareilly. In terms of the aforementioned application it was stated that only a part of the total gratuity amount due to them had been paid by the employer and accordingly claims were raised for payment of the balance amount. The aforementioned application came to be decided by the Controlling Authority by means of the order dated 17.03.2005 directing payment of the balance amount of gratuity.
6. Upon similar applications being filed by the workmen who are parties in the connected writ petitions, different orders bearing date 17.03.2005 were passed by the Controlling Authority allowing the claims for payment of difference of gratuity.
7. The aforementioned orders dated 17.03.2005 passed by the Controlling Authority came to be challenged by the petitioner, Bareilly Nagar Nigam, by filing writ petitions on the ground that the P.G. Act, 1972 was not applicable to the Bareilly Nagar Nigam. The particulars of these writ petitions are as follows:
| Serial Numbers | Writ Petitions | Parties |
| 1 | WRIT-C No.41977 of 2005 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam through Municipal Commissioner Vs. Fatima Begum & Ors. |
| 2 | WRIT-C No.41988 of 2005 | Bareilly Nagar Nigam through |
