Statutory rights under the Payment of Gratuity Act prevail over contractual agreements, and settlements made during conciliation bind all employees.

JUDGMENT

[WA Nos.2095/2024, 2088/2024, 2111/2024]

Amit Rawal, J.

This order shall dispose of three (3) Writ Appeals bearing Nos. 2088, 2095 and 2111 of 2024 arising out of the common judgment of the Single Bench in various writ petitions (WP(C) No.32886/2018, 32905/2018 and 32888/2018, wherein the appellant-petitioner was not successful in laying challenge to the order of the Controlling Authority dated 29.5.2015 whereby the claim for gratuity of the respondents-claimants from 1979 submitted before the Controlling Authority on retirement has been accepted and the appeal preferred against the same, vide order dated 17.7.2018, was also dismissed.

2. The controversy involved in these cases is common; therefore are being decided together by a common judgment. Respondents-claimants alleged to be the employees of the appellant from 1979. On retirement in the year 2010 filed a claim petition before the controlling authority claiming the gratuity from 1979 though the gratuity from period 1989 had already been paid by the appellant. The payment of the gratuity for the period in controversy was denied by the appellant on the ground that there was a settlement between the Unions of which the respondents- claimants are the members whereby not only their services were regularized but it was clarified that the gratuity will be payable with effect from 24.10.1989. No dispute in respect of the settlement dated 10.5.1991 was ever raised. In other words, the respondents-claimants were absorbed on company rolls from 1.4.1991. The period of regularization was never assailed at any point of time during the period of service till the age of superannuation. On superannuation appellant besides other retirement benefits also released the gratuity by taking their services from the year 1989 on the rolls of the appellant. However, the claim set up before the Controlling authority was that as per the seniority list produced on record, concededly the respondents-claimants have been shown on the rolls of the appellant since 1979 ie., date of joining.

3. The plea of the appellant with regard to the implementation and compliance of the terms and conditions of the settlement was neither accepted by the controlling authority or in the appeal before the appellate authority.

4. When the matter was taken up before the Single Bench, the learned Single Bench though in paragraph 15 did not dispute the reference to the sanctity of the settlement Ext.P2 but pointed out that the settlement cannot over ride the provisions of the statute ie., provisions of Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act providing an overriding effect regarding the instrument or contract to the contrary. It is in that background, the intra court appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant.

5. Sri. E.K Nandakumar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.jaimohan in support of the memorandum of appeal has raised multifarious arguments which are enumerated in the following manner:

a. The terms and conditions of the settlement Ext.P2, particularly clause 5 and the last paragraph of it reflect that the (53) canteen workers shown in Annexure A have been taken on the company rolls of the canteen subject to the medical finesses with a condition that their work will be on temporary basis for the period of one year from the date of the option ie., from 1.4.1991 with a clarification that their services in the canteen as specified in Annexure C will be reckoned.

b. Annexure C attached to the aforementioned Exhibit provides the name of the employee, date of birth, qualification, date of joining etc. Name of the respondents- claimants are also figuring there. An employee or a person bound by the settlement cannot be permitted to adopt dichotomous approach by approbating and reprobating much less fragmenting the settlement to the suitability. In other words, there was no assailment or challenge with regard to the regularization on the employment of the management with effect from 1989 but as regards the grat