Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – ss.1(3)(c) and 14 – Retirement and Benefits and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1962 – r.4(1) – Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 – s.548 – Employees of Municipal Corporation claimed gratuity by invoking the jurisdiction of the controlling authorities under the Act, 1972 – Controlling authorities allowed the petition for gratuity in favour of the employees – Appellant contended that gratuity is payable in terms of r.4(1) of the 1967 Regulations published under the Act, 1959 – Therefore, the employees of the Municipalities were entitled to gratuity only in terms of such Regulations and not under the Act, 1972 – High Court held that employees of Municipalities were entitled to the gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1972 – On appeal, held: Central Government had published a notification dated 8.1.1982 in terms of s.1(3)(c) of the Act, 1972 which made it clear that the Act is applicable to the local bodies i.e. the Municipalities – s.14 of the Act, 1972 has given an overriding effect over any other inconsistent provision in any other enactment – In view of s.14, the provision in the State Act contemplating payment of Gratuity will be inapplicable in respect of the employees of the local bodies – Thus, there is no error in the orders passed by the controlling authorities under the Act and as maintained by the High Court – General Clauses Act, 1987 – s.3(31).
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In terms of the Section 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Central Government has published a notification on 08.01.1982 and specified Local Bodies in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months as a class of establishment to which this Act shall apply. The notification dated 08.01.1982 was not referred to before the High Court. Such notification makes it abundantly clear that the Act, 1972 is applicable to the local bodies i.e., the Municipalities. Section 14 of the Act, 1972 has given an overriding effect over any other inconsistent provision in any other enactment. In view of Section 14 of the Act, the provision in the State Act contemplating payment of Gratuity will be inapplicable in respect of the employees of the local bodies. [Paras 10, 11 and 12][1032-F; 1033-C; E]
2. The entire argument of the appellant is that the State Act confers the restrictive benefit of gratuity than what is conferred under the Central Act. Such argument is not tenable in view of Section 14 of the Act and that liberal payment of gratuity is in fact in the interest of the employees. Thus, the gratuity would be payable under the Act, 1972. Such is the view taken by the Controlling Authority. In view of the aforesaid, there is no error in the orders passed by the Controlling Authorities under the Act and as maintained by the High Court. [Paras 14, 15] [1033-G-H; 1034-A]
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma and Another AIR 1999 SC 293: (1998) 7 SCC
221 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.