IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

115 CM-3545-CWP-2025 in/&

Date of Decision :17.03.2025 R.K.S.D. (P.G.) College, Kaithal ...Petitioner and another Versus Rajbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-3545-CWP-2025

1. Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by this Court by which, the main writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Order dated 03.02.2025 passed by this Court is recalled and the main writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number and status and is taken up for hearing today itself.

3. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner-College

08.08.2024 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respective authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘1972 Act’) is incorrect and is thus casuign prejudice to the petitioner- College. Hence, it is the prayer of the petitioner-College that both these orders dated 28.09.2023 (Annexure P/3) and 08.08.2024 (Annexure P/5) be kindly set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-College argues that though, respondent No.1-Workman was working with the petitioner-College as Clerk but since he was working on contractual basis and as a contractual employee is not entitled for anything over and above the wages as has been stipulated in the contract both parties entered into hence, the grant of benefit of gratuity to the respondent No.1-Workman by the competent authority under the 1972 Act is against the terms and conditions of the contract, which both the parties entered into, which fact has not been appreciated by the authorities while passing impugned order dated

28.09.2023 (Annexure P/3).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-College further argues that as per the rules governing the service, an employee working on contractual basis is not entitled for any benefit over and above the wages mentioned in the contract, which is clear even from the agreement entered into between the respondent No.1 and petitioner-College.

4. I have heard learned learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

08.08.2024 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respective authorities exercising jurisdiction under the 1972 Act are being challenged only on the ground that the same is contrary to the agreement entered into between the petitioner-College and respondent No.1.

6. It may be noticed that once, an employee had worked for a period of 05 years, he/she becomes entitled for the grant of benefit of gratuity under the 1972 Act and any agreement entered into between the parties will not take away the right of the employee to claim the benefit envisaged under the 1972 Act. As such, the 1972 Act will prevail over the agreement/contract entered into between the parties.

7. Nothing has been brought on record by learned counsel for the petitioner-College to show that under the 1972 Act, the respondent No.1- Workman was not entitled for the grant of benefit of gratuity, which benefit has been awarded to respondent No.1-Workman by the authority exercising jurisdiction under the 1972 Act by the impugned award. 28.09.2023 (Annexure P/3). As no perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-College in the impugned order dated 28.09.2023 (Annexure P/3), the same needs no interference at the hands of this Court and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

March 17, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No