The main legal point established in the judgment is the overriding effect of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 over inconsistent laws and the requirement for the joinder of the necessary party.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner i.e. Municipal Council of the Damoh has filed the present miscellaneous petition challenging the order passed by Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 15.6.2017 and the order dated 31.5.2018 passed in Gratuity Appeal No.110/2017 by the Appellate Authority.

2. The respondent was working as Lower Division Clerk in Municipal Council, Damoh. She was appointed on 1.4.1972 and she was superannuated from service on 31.5.2009 after attaining age of 60 years. Municipal Council, Damoh granted an amount of Rs.2, 03,742 to the respondent. Later on, pay of the respondent was revised as per Revision of Pay Rules, 2009. After retirement, respondent was paid arrears of salary arrived at after refixation of pay. Respondent had filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming that she has been paid less amount of gratuity and she is entitled to get gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority vide its order dated 15.6.2017 held that respondent is entitled to the gratuity amount of Rs.3,16,051/-. Respondent was paid gratuity amount of 2,03,742/- by the Municipal Council. Petitioner was ordered to be paid difference of this amount, which comes to Rs.1,12,309/-. The Controlling Authority also held that respondent is also entitled to get interest due to delayed payment. It was also held by the Controlling Authority that there was delay of eight years and, therefore, 10% interest is also to be paid to the respondent. Total amount of interest comes to Rs.89,843/- and the total amount of gratuity to be paid to respondent is Rs.2,02,447/-. The Controlling Authority further held that Section 14 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will have overriding effect on other laws and rules, which are inconsistent with Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. Learned counsel for the Municipal Council before Controlling Authority had made arguments that employees of Municipal Council are being paid salary and gratuity as per Municipal Council Pension Rules 1980. Respondent herein cannot claim the benefit of gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Respondent has already received pension under Municipal Council Pension Rules, 1980 and gratuity has also been accepted by the respondent under the same rules. Now she cannot turn around and claim payment of gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Municipal Council Pension Rules,1980. The Controlling Authority did not find the argument attractive. It was held by the Controlling Authority that the issue has already been decided by the Apex Court in the matter of Delhi Municipal Corporation Versus Dharam Prakash Sharma reported in A.I.R 1999 SC 293 . In the said case, it has been held by the Apex Court that as per Section 5 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the power has been conferred on appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from operation of the provisions of the Act. Since Municipal Council of Delhi has not been exempted under section 5 of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, therefore, the provisions of Section 14 will be applicable and they will override the other provisions, which are contradictory or inconsistent with the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It was also held that employee of Municipal Corporation of Delhi is entitled to get gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and pension under Pension Rules of Municipal Council, Delhi. In the light of aforesaid judgment, the Controlling Authority allowed the claim of the respondent. Appellate Authority in appeal has affirmed the judgment passed by the Controlling Authority and has dismissed the appeal filed by Municipal Council, Damoh.

4. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised similar arguments before this Court and has argued that respondent will be governed by Municipal Council Pension Rules,1980. The Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent and