Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5956-5958 of 1999
PETITIONER:
E I D PARRY (I) LIMITED
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
G. OMKAR MURTHY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/03/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Variava
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
In these cases the respondents-employees were in the
employment of the appellant between the years 1958 and 1984.
On October 1, 1984 voluntary retirement scheme was
introduced and the respondents availed of that benefit and
left the services after obtaining the terminal benefits as
provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as the Central Act]. Thereafter
petitions were filed under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh
Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to
as the State Act] claiming the difference between the
gratuity received by them and the gratuity payable under
Section 40 of the State Act. Before the Authority under the
State Act, three objections were raised that (i) there has
been inordinate delay in preferring the claim; (ii) for
payment of gratuity the Central Act prevails over the State
Act, and (iii) the question whether the gratuity payable
under the Central Act is more favourable than the State Act
could not be examined by the trial court concerned. The
trial court, however, gave relief to the workmen. The
appellate authority dismissed all the three appeals.
Revision petitions filed before the High Court also stood
dismissed. Hence these appeals by special leave.
Four contentions are put forth before us, namely, that
(i) The Central Act prevails over the State Act by
virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution and Section 40(3)
is invalid and the claims are unsustainable;
(ii) Section 40(3) of the State Act stood repealed on
the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and
Establishments Act, 1988 and gratuity became payable under
Section 47(5) of the State Act where payment of gratuity is
not payable under the Central Act;
(iii) Section 14 of the Central Act overrides other
enactments in relation to gratuity, and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
(iv) The respondents have been paid gratuity under the
Central Act for the period covered and for the balance
period of service gratuity is paid under the prevailing
trust scheme.
At the relevant time when the respondents voluntarily
retired from service the definition of employee under
Section 2(e) of the Central Act read as not to include
employee whose wages exceeded Rs. 1,000/- per mensem while
the respondents-employees were all getting wages more than
Rs. 1,600/- per mensem and, therefore, the Central Act
could not be applied. If that is so, it is certainly
permissible for the respondents to have made an application
for payment of gratuity under Section 40(3) of the State
Act. Further the scheme of the Central Act would indicate
that it would not be applicable in cases where the State Act
is more beneficial than the Central Act. In this case, the
finding is that the State Act is more beneficial than the
Central Act. Therefore, the contentions sought to be
advanced on behalf of the appellant as to repugnancy or
otherwise of the State Act would not arise at all. If both
the enactments can co-exist and can operate where one Act or
the other is not available then we find no difficulty in
making the State Act applicable on the fact situation
available as has been done in the present case. Therefore,
we find that the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellant are unsustainable.
Shri Narayan B. Shetye, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Central Act
is a complete code containing detailed provisions and
creates right of payment of gratuity and, therefore, the
Central Act should prevail over the State Act. Reliance has
been placed on the decision of this Court in State of Punjab
v. Labour Court, Jullundur & Ors., 1980 (1) SCR 953. In
that case the issue before the Court was whether for payment
of gratuity an application could be made under Section
33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it was
held that such an application could not be filed under the
said Act. Therefore, this decision cannot be of any
assistance to the appellant inasmuch as the question before
us is whether the Central Act or the State Act would apply
for payment of gratuity.
The decision in M.S.R. Murthy v. Arva Somayajula
Yagneswara Chenulu, 1985 LAB I.C. 189, also is of no use to
the appellant inasmuch as the State Act is held not to
operate to the extent the Central Act prevails. In the
present case, on facts, it is found that the Central Act is
not applicable.
Therefore, we find no substance in any of the arguments
advanced by the appellant. The appeals, therefore, stand
dismissed. No costs.