Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8044/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8044 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8045 of 2010
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8049 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5883 of 2010
=========================================================
GUJARAT
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (GIRDA) - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHEELA
S IYER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS SHRUSTI
THULA FOR MS ROMA I FIDELIS for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NILESH A PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 14/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
All
these petitions involve common questions on law and facts and
therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
1. By
way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the orders
passed by the Controlling Authority as also the Appellate Authority
under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the Act ),
whereby, the petitioner has been directed to make payment towards
Gratuity to the respondent-employees.
2. The
petitioner herein is an autonomous body functioning in the Office of
the Industries Commissioner, Industries & Mines Department,
Government of Gujarat with 100% Grant-in-Aid and is engaged in the
activity of providing services related to research & development,
extensions & training, assistance & guidance to small and
medium scale industries within the State.
3. The
respondents herein, who were employees of the petitioner-agency, had
filed Applications in the prescribed form before respondent
no.2-Controlling Authority claiming Gratuity. The said Applications
preferred by the respondents came to be allowed. Against the said
orders, the petitioner-agency approached the Appellate Authority
under the said Act by way of filing Appeals. However, the said
Appeals also came to be rejected. Hence, these petitions.
4. Heard
learned counsel Ms. Shrusti Thula, appearing on behalf of Ms. Roma
Fidelis & Mr. Nilesh Pandya for the petitioners and perused the
documents on record.
5. The
main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-agency is that it
is governed by its own Service Rules and that the employees concerned
are entitled for Gratuity, if they fulfill the requisite criteria, as
provided under the said Service Rules.
6. Before
we embark upon the merits of the case, it would be fruitful to refer
to certain provisions of the said Act, more particularly, Section
4(5) & Section 14. The said provisos are reproduced hereunder for
ready reference;
4. Payment of
gratuity.- (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of
an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or
agreement or contract with the employer.
14. Act to override other
enactments, etc. – The provisions of this Act or any rule made
thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any
instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other
than this Act.
7. The
above two provisos conclusively demonstrate that the provisions of
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 override other enactments,
etc. if such enactment/s contains anything which is inconsistent with
the provisions of the said Act. In the present case, the relevant
clauses of the Service Rules of the petitioner-agency, which deals
with the issue of Gratuity, are inconsistent with the provisions of
the said Act. Therefore, the provisions of the said Act will override
the clauses relating to Gratuity, as framed in the Service Rules of
the petitioner-agency. In view of the above, the authorities
concerned were completely justified in passing the impugned orders
and hence, I find no reasons to interfere in these petitions.
8. The
petitioners (In S.C.A. No.5883/2010) have claimed Interest on the
amount of Gratuity, which are lying with the respondent-authorities.
In my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to receive any
Interest on the amount of Gratuity, which have been deposited before
the respondent-authorities by the petitioner-agency, since there is
no provision regarding Interest under the said Act. In the absence of
any such proviso, this Court cannot issue directions for the grant of
Interest on the amount of Gratuity.
9. Consequently,
all the petitions stand rejected. It is, however, observed that the
petitioners (In S.C.A. No.5883/2010) shall be at liberty to file
appropriate proceedings before the competent Court for the purpose of
claiming Interest. Notice is discharged.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top