Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. , Gwalior vs D. D. Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(MP) 184

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd., Gwalior v. D.D. Singh
Writ Petition No.8918, 8929, 8849, 2871, 3109, 3718, 3719, 3723, 4513, 7770, 7771, 7772, 8217, 8374 of 2013, 215, 214, 213, 250, 1396 of 2014, 8375, 8377, 8552, 8553, 8772, 8908 and 8910 of 2013; Decided on 14.3.2014.

Advocates:
Anmol Khedkar, Ravi Jain, Nitin Agrawal, Vivek Jain and Manoj Kumar Dwivedi for petitioners;
M.L. Hirway, Prashant Sharma, D.P. Singh, Neeraj Shrivastava and Subodh Pradhan for respondents.

Headnote:(1) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- Ss.4 and 14 -- Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 -- S.79(c) -- Gratuity Act overrides other provisions/enactments -- accordingly, gratuity rules will have overriding effect on pension rulels -- Gratuity Act more beneficial to employees -- controlling and appellate authority committed no error in applying Gratuity Act -- employees entitled to get interest as per Gratuity Act.
       Held : A simple reading of this finding makes it clear that the apex Court opined that the Gratuity Act will have overriding effect over any other provisions/enactments. Said principle is squarely applicable in the present case. Resultantly, I have no hesitation to hold that Gratuity rules have overriding effect on the Pension Rules. As discussed above, the calculation under the Gratuity Act is more beneficial to the employees. In this regard, controlling and appellate authority have not committed any error in applying the Gratuity Act. (2013)3 SCC 472 followed. Writ Petition No.5618 of 2007 relied on.
       (2) Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 (M.P.) -- R.7(5) -- no claim for gratuity shall be invalid merely because of failure of claimant to present his application within specified period. [Para 12
       (3) Constitution of India -- Art.300A -- amount of retiral dues including gratuity not bounty but property -- employee cannot be deprived it. 2013 AIR SCW 4749 followed. 2013(III) MPWN 11 relied on. [Paras 13 to 15
       ¼1½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 && /kkjk 4 rFkk 14 && fo|qr ¼iznk;½ vf/kfu;e] 1948 && /kkjk 79 ¼x½ && minku vf/kfu;e vU; mica/kks@vf/kfu;fefr;ks ij v/;kjksgh && rn~uqlkj] minku fu;e isa’ku fu;eks ij v/;kjksgh izHkko ja[ksxs && minku vf/kfu;e deZpkfj;ks ds fy, vf/kd Qk;nkizn && fu;=ad rFkk vihy izkf/kdkjh us minku vf/kfu;e ykxw djus es dksbZ xyrh ugh dh && minku vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj deZpkjh C;kt ikus ds gdnkjA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl fu”d”kZ ds iBu ek= ls ;g Li”V gksrk gS fd mPpre U;k;ky; us crk;k fd minku vf/kfu;e vU; fdUgh Hkh mica/kks@vf/kfu;fefr;ksa ij v/;kjksgh izHkko j[ksxkA mDr fl)kar izLrqr ekeys es lVhd :Ik ls ykxw gSA ifj.kkeLo:i] eq>s ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus es dksbZ fgpd ugh gS fd minku fu;e isa’ku fu;eks ij v/;kjksgh izHkko j[krs gSA ;Fkk Åij foosfpr fd;k x;k] minku vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ifjdyu deZpkfj;ks ds fy, vf/kd Qk;nkizn gSA bl lac/k es] fu;a=d rFkk vihy izkf/kdkjh us minku vf/kfu;e ykxw djus es dksbZ xyrh ugh dhA ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 472 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpd dz-5618 lu~ 2007 voyafcrA

       ¼2½ minku lank; fu;e] 1973 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-7¼5½ && nkosnkj ds fofufnZ”V dkykof/k ds Hkhrj viuk vkosnu izLrqr djus es vlQy jgus ds dkj.k ek= ls minku ds fy, nkok vfof/kekU; ugh gksxksA ¼iSjk 12

       ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-300d && minku lfgr lsokfuo`fÙk ns;ks dh jde buke ugh cfYd laifÙk gS && deZpkjh dks blls oafpr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA 2013 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 4749 vuqlfjrA 2013 ¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 11 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 13 ls 15

ORDER

1. Since similar questions are involved in these matters, on the joint request of the parties, matters were heard analogously and decided by this common order.

This order shall govern the disposal of Writ Petitions No.8929 /2013, 8849/2013, 2871/2013, 3109/2013, 3718/2013, 3719/2013, 3723/2013, 4513/2013, 7770/2013, 7771/2013, 7772/2013, 8217/2013, 8374/2013, 215/2014, 214/2014, 213/2014, 250/2014, 1396/2014, 8375/2013, 8377/2013, 8552/2013, 8553/2013, 8772/2013, 8908/2013 and 8910/2013.

Facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 8918/2013 :

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of the controlling authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity “ the Act”) dated 30.6.2012 (Annexure P-2). The appellate order passed by the Appellate authority, under the Act, dated 3.8.2013 (Annexure P-10) is also called in question.

3. I have heard Shri K.N. Gupta, Shri Ravi jain, Shri Vivek Jain and Shri Nitin Agrawal and Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-employer. Learned counsel for the petitioners have criticized the impugned orders on the ground that as per section 4(5) of the Act the employee is entitled to get better terms of gratuity as per rules prevailing in the employer’s department, better terms of gratuity is as per the rules of the employer and not as per the gratuity Act. By taking this Court to section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, it is contended that the power to make regulations is flowing from this provision. By placing reliance on Annexure P-5 dated 5.5.1976, it is contended that by invoking powers conferred under section 79(c), aforesaid, the Board had framed the M.P. Electricity Board payment of Gratuity Rules 1972. These rules were subsequently substituted by notification issued in exercise of power conferred by Clause (c) of section 79 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 on 3.4.1978. By this notification the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 ( for brevity “ Pension Rules”) were adopted. By relying on clause (6) of this notification, it is submitted that the employees were given option to decide whether they intend to continue with earlier rules or by new rules. In absence of exercising any option within prescribed period, as per deeming clause Pension Rules would be applicable.

4. The bone of contention is that pension Rules adopted by the employer would be applicable and payment of gratuity made to the employees is in accordance with Pension Rules. It is further contended that in certain cases the employee retired before 24.5.2010 and in those cases also the Authorities under the Act have granted more than Rs.3,50,000/- as gratuity. By placing reliance on section 4(3) of the Act, it is contended that before 24.5.2010 the maximum amount payable as gratuity was Rs.3,50,000/- whereas after the said date, it became Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also criticized the orders impugned on the ground that the employees without any objection or demur accepted the gratuity amount at the time of their retirement. After lapse of long time, they preferred an application seeking gratuity with interest. Such applications were hit by limitation and should have been dismissed on this count. In no case, interest could have been granted to the employees because of their belated approach to the authorities under Act.

6. Per Contra, Shri Prashant Sharma, Shri Subodh Pradhan and Shri D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the employees supported the orders. They relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5618/2007(s) (Chief Engineer, M.P. State Electricity Board v. Radheshyam Goyal). Shri Prashant Sharma submits that against this Division Bench judgment, the employer filed a SLP. It was withdrawn with the liberty to file the review. The review petition was subsequently filed before this Court which was dismissed. Thus, order has attained finality. On a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document