Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7312/2007 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7312 of 2007
=========================================================
CHIEF
OFFICER & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PASIBEN
GANDABHAI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
Date
: 22/03/2007
ORAL
ORDER The
petitioners ? the Chief Officer and the Prsident of the Viramgam
Municipality (hereinafter referred to as, ?Sthe Municipality??)
have challenged the order dated 17th August, 2004 made by
the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in
Application No.48/2004. It is not in dispute that the respondent was
the employee of the Municipality and that on her retirement from
service, she was entitled to gratuity. The Municipality did pay the
gratuity to the respondent in accordance with its rules regarding
gratuity. The respondent, however, approached the Controlling
Authority under the Act and claimed the difference of amount of
gratuity calculated under the Act. The Application was contested by
the Municipality. According to the Municipality, the Municipality has
its own rules of gratuity which are approved by the State Government
under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The Municipality,
therefore, was not liable to pay gratuity under the Act. The said
objection did not appeal to the Controlling Authority. The
Controlling Authority held that the Municipality was liable to pay to
the respondent gratuity in the sum of Rs.73,558=00 under the Act.
Accordingly, the Municipality was directed to pay the unpaid amount
of gratuity. Therefore, the present petition.
Mr.Dagli
has submitted that under the rules of the Municipality, the
respondent was entitled to a gratuity in the sum of Rs.60,109=00 i.e.
Rs.13,449=00 less than the amount payable under the Act. He has
submitted that the Municipality having its own rules is not liable to
pay gratuity under the Act.
Section
14 of the Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions contained
in the Act over any enactment, rules or contract. In view of the said
provision, rules framed by the Municipality, though prior to the date
of the Act, shall give way to the provisions contained in the Act.
Mr.Dagli, having received instructions from the Chief Officer Shri
Goswami, admits the Municipality has not received exemption from the
application of the Act granted by the appropriate Government as
envisaged by Section 5 of the Act. In absence of such exemption
granted by the appropriate Government, the Act shall apply to the
Municipality.
For
the aforesaid reasons, the petition is summarily rejected.
Mr.Dagli
has submitted that there are as many as 33 such applications. The
Municipality has been directed to pay the difference in amount of
gratuity to the concerned employees. Considering its financial
condition, the Municipality is not in a position to pay the amount of
difference in gratuity to each such employee in lump-sum. He has,
therefore, requested that the Court may permit the payment of such
amount in installments.
I
am of the opinion that if at all the Municipality needs some
indulgence in respect of the payment of the amount as ordered by the
Controlling Authority, the Municipality may approach the Controlling
Authority with a request to make remittance of the amount of gratuity
in installments. If such application is made, the Controlling
Authority may consider the same and make suitable order after giving
opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee/s.
(Ms.
R.M.Doshit, J.)
/moin
  Â
Top