IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

105 CWP-3628-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 28.02.2025 HARBANS SINGH ...... Petitioner VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS ...... Respondents

2. CWP-3648-2025 (O&M)

SATINDER PAL SINGH ...... Petitioner VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS ...... Respondents

3. CWP-3657-2025 (O&M)

LEKH RAJ ...... Petitioner VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS

4. CWP-3659-2025 (O&M)

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA ...... Petitioner VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS ...... Respondents

5. CWP-3667-2025 (O&M)

PAWAN KUMAR JETHI ...... Petitioner VERSUS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS ...... Respondents

6. CWP-5678-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...... Petitioners VERSUS HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS ...... Respondents

7. CWP-5710-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...... Petitioners VERSUS SATINDER PAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...... Respondents

8. CWP-5712-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...... Petitioners VERSUS AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS ...... Respondents

9. CWP-5713-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...... Petitioners VERSUS LEKH RAJ AND OTHERS ...... Respondents

10. CWP-5714 of 2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...... Petitioners VERSUS PAWAN KUMAR JETHI AND OTHERS ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ***

Present :- Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate with (through VC)

Ms. Nandita Grewal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-3628-2025, CWP-3648-2025, CWP-3657-2025, CWP-3659-2025 and CWP-3667-2025 and for respondents in remaining cases.

Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate and Mr. Prince Pushpinder Rana, Advocate for the petitioners-Bank in CWP-5678-2025, CWP-5710-2025 CWP-5712-2025, CWP-5713-2025 and CWP-5714 of 2025 and for respondents in remaining cases.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. By this common order, ten writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being decided as all these petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts and challenge is to the same impugned order.

2. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the same orders passed by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act'). The petitioners-employees are claiming that their wages have not been assessed correctly while calculating the amount of gratuity which is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3355 of 1998 titled 'Indian Bank's Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others' decided on 13.02.2001, according to which, the commission being drawn by the workmen-Deposit Collectors of bank, is to be treated as a part of the wages whereas, while passing the order under 1972 Act, the authorities, has not been included commission and only the fall back wages have been taken into account to calculate the entitlement of the Deposit Collectors qua the gratuity, which is arbitrary and illegal. The prayer of the petitioners- workmen is that their gratuity entitlement should be assessed by taking into account the fall back wages as well as the commission which they were getting over and above the fall back wages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen further submits that the petitioners are the Deposit Collectors who are bringing business to the respondent-bank and they are accordingly paid the commission on the said business brought to the bank, and the said commission not being treated as part of their wages as so as to calculate the amount of gratuity, is arbitrary and illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the definition of wages, as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to a