Civil Appeal No. 1478 of 2004 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 150 of 2007 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 237 of 2007. Case: 1. Allahabad Bank and Another, 2. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Emps. Assn. Vs 1. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, 2. Allahabad Bank and Another, 3. Controlling Authority and Another. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1478 of 2004 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 150 of 2007 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 237 of 2007
CounselFor Appellant: P.P. Rao and Jitendra Sharma, Sr. Advs., Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Tanushree Mukherjee and Rama Arora, Sr. Manager Law for K.L. Mehta and Co., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Vandana Mishra, Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, B.K. Pal, P.N. Jha and D.S. Mahra, Advs
JudgesB. S. Reddy & R. M. Lodha, JJ.
IssueConstitution of India, 1950 - Article 226; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 2(e), 3, 4(1), 4(5), 4, 5, 7, 14; Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955
Citation2010 (1) AWC 931 (SC) , (2010) I LLJ 593 SC , 2009 (14) SCALE 577 , (2010) 2 SCC 44 , 2009 (2) UJ 1104 (SC)
Judgement DateDecember 15, 2009
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.

  1. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association (for short 'Association') filed a writ petition invoking the original jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appellant bank herein to pay gratuity to the members of its Association under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ( for short 'the said Act'). The High Court on due consideration of the matter declared that the retired employees of the appellant bank were entitled to the benefit of gratuity under the said Act and accordingly directed the payment of gratuity within the time specified in the judgment. The said judgment of the Allahabad High Court is impugned in this appeal.

  2. A short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the retired employees of appellant bank are entitled to payment of gratuity under the provisions of the said Act?

  3. The retired employees of the appellant bank having formed an association which includes officers and subordinate staff sent a legal notice to the appellant bank on 27.11.1988 requiring it to release the amount of gratuity to its members in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. The case set up by the Association was that its members were being illegally deprived of their statutory right to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Act on the pretext that they had opted for pensionary benefits in lieu of gratuity. It appears that on behalf of the Association applications were sent to the competent authority in the prescribed proforma for payment of gratuity in response to which the appellant bank made its stand explicitly clear that it was not possible to make payment of gratuity in addition to pension. Since the whole cause of action is based on the response of the appellant bank dated 10.01.1989, it would be appropriate to notice the same in its entirety.

    Ref. No. Admn./5/0280

    Date: January 10,1989

    The General Secretary All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, Central Office, Ram Bhawan, C-1254B, Sector-A, Mahanagar, Lucknow.

    Dear Sir,

    Payment of Gratuity

    This has reference to your letter Bank/14/8 dated 14.11.1988 and enclosures.

    In this connection, we have to advise that Allahabad Bank has accepted contributory Provident Fund Scheme, which is not available to Government employees. Besides this, the Bank has a Pension Scheme in which an employee/officer may exercise option letter for Pension or Gratuity; but the dual benefits are not available under the scheme Since the respective pensioners have exercised their option voluntarily for availing of pension in lieu of Gratuity on their retirement from the bank's service, they are not eligible for gratuity at all. They are receiving pension since their retirement and as such we are not in a position to accede to your request for payment of gratuity in addition to pension to the persons named in your letter under reference.

    Yours faithfully,

    Sd/-

    (R.K. Nath) Chief Manager (P.A.)

  4. The Association thereafter filed a writ petition asserting its right that its members were entitled to receive gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The contention was that the consent or option given by the members of the Association opting for pension scheme would not deprive them of their statutory right to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Act. The appellant bank resisted the writ petition filed by the Association mainly relying upon the Awards known as Shastry Award and Deasai Award and subsequent settlements under which employees were entitled either to the benefit of pension or benefit of gratuity at one's own option but not both. The Bank took a specific stand that the members of the Association had voluntarily opted for pension scheme, as a result thereof, they were not entitled to receive gratuity as well since they have already exercised their option claiming benefit of pension. The submission was that at the time of their retirement all the employees were paid contributory provident fund and pension in terms of option exercised by them, under the relevant Pension Scheme of the bank and therefore, they were not entitled to payment of any gratuity. The bank further asserted that the employees opted for the pensionary benefits which, admittedly, are better in terms as found by various Awards that pensionary scheme was really more advantageous to the employees than that of the gratuity.

  5. We may at this stage notice that appellant bank did not succeed in its attempt to get the bank exempted from the operations of provisions of the Act.

  6. Before adverting to the question as to whether the retired employees of the bank are entitled to payment of any gratuity, it may be just and necessary to notice the objects and reasons and the scheme of the Act. It was realised that there was no Central Act to regulate the payment of gratuity to industrial workers, except the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. The Government of Kerala enacted legislation for payment of gratuity to workers employed in factories, plantations, shops and establishments. The West Bengal enacted an Ordinance on 3.6.1971 prescribing a similar scheme of gratuity. Gratuity was also being paid by some employers to their workers under Awards and agreements. Since the enactment of the Kerala and the West Bengal Acts, some other State Governments have also voiced their intention of enacting similar measures in their respective States. It is under those circumstances the Union Government realised that it has become necessary, to have a Central law on the subject so as to ensure a uniform pattern of payment of gratuity to the employees throughout the country. The Act was intended to avoid different treatment to the employees of establishments having branches in more than one State. The proposal for Central legislation on gratuity was discussed in various Labour Ministers' Conference, where Central legislation on payment of gratuity was felt a necessity.

  7. Section 4 (1) of the Act provides:

    "(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,--

    (a) on his superannuation, or

    (b) on his retirement or resignation, or

    (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease."

  8. The expression "employee" is defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act as any person (other than apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied.......... There is no dispute before us that the appellant bank is an establishment and an employer within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. Section 5 confers power upon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • LPA 810 538/2013 and LPA 538/2014. Case: University of Delhi Vs Kanwar Kumar Gambhir and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
    • India
    • 4 August 2015
    ...more particularly that in Section 4 thereof. In Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees' Association, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 44, it has been held that for the purpose of computation of quantum of grant of gratuity, if the terms of agreement are better than the statute......
  • LPA--538/2014. Case: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. SH. SURINDER KUMAR. High Court of Delhi (India)
    • India
    • 4 August 2015
    ...more particularly that in Section 4 thereof. In Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees’ Association, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 44 , it has been held that purpose of computation of quantum of grant of gratuity, if the terms agreement are better than the statute, then the......
  • W.P. (C) 2467/2015. Case: University of Delhi Vs Subhash Chander Chopra and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
    • India
    • 18 May 2015
    ... ... order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in ... authority towards a balance gratuity along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum as ... the Appellate Authority under the Act in Appeal No. ND.36(29) /2013-P.A. whereby the Appellate ... facts of the case as borne out from the petition are that the petitioner is Central University ... 28-A for payment of gratuity to its employees. Respondent No. 4 i.e. University Grants ... 1 is an ex-employee of the petitioner who retired on 30.06.2001 and was accordingly paid a sum of ... this order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 5040/2013 before ... Thereafter, the petitioner filed another appeal before the Appellate Authority which was ... 10. The Apex Court in 'Allahabad Bank versus All India Allahabad Bank Retired oyees Association', (2010) 2 SCC 44, observed as under:- ... "14. A ... Bank', (2013) 3 SCC 472, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had observed:- ... "22 ... A ... Sharwan Kumar Gupta and Others', W.P.(Civil) No. 5138/2014, wherein it was held:- ... "16 ... ...
  • LPA--810/2013. Case: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. KANWAR KUMAR GAMBHIR & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
    • India
    • 4 August 2015
    ...more particularly that in Section 4 thereof. In Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees’ Association, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 44 , it has been held that purpose of computation of quantum of grant of gratuity, if the terms agreement are better than the statute, then the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • LPA 810 538/2013 and LPA 538/2014. Case: University of Delhi Vs Kanwar Kumar Gambhir and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
    • India
    • 4 August 2015
    ...more particularly that in Section 4 thereof. In Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees' Association, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 44, it has been held that for the purpose of computation of quantum of grant of gratuity, if the terms of agreement are better than the statute......
  • LPA--538/2014. Case: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. SH. SURINDER KUMAR. High Court of Delhi (India)
    • India
    • 4 August 2015
    ...more particularly that in Section 4 thereof. In Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees’ Association, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 44 , it has been held that purpose of computation of quantum of grant of gratuity, if the terms agreement are better than the statute, then the......
  • W.P. (C) 2467/2015. Case: University of Delhi Vs Subhash Chander Chopra and Ors.. High Court of Delhi (India)
    • India
    • 18 May 2015
    ... ... order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in ... authority towards a balance gratuity along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum as ... the Appellate Authority under the Act in Appeal No. ND.36(29) /2013-P.A. whereby the Appellate ... facts of the case as borne out from the petition are that the petitioner is Central University ... 28-A for payment of gratuity to its employees. Respondent No. 4 i.e. University Grants ... 1 is an ex-employee of the petitioner who retired on 30.06.2001 and was accordingly paid a sum of ... this order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 5040/2013 before ... Thereafter, the petitioner filed another appeal before the Appellate Authority which was ... 10. The Apex Court in 'Allahabad Bank versus All India Allahabad Bank Retired oyees Association', (2010) 2 SCC 44, observed as under:- ... "14. A ... Bank', (2013) 3 SCC 472, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had observed:- ... "22 ... A ... Sharwan Kumar Gupta and Others', W.P.(Civil) No. 5138/2014, wherein it was held:- ... "16 ... ...
  • LPA--810/2013. Case: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. KANWAR KUMAR GAMBHIR & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
    • India
    • 4 August 2015
    ...more particularly that in Section 4 thereof. In Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees’ Association, reported as (2010) 2 SCC 44 , it has been held that purpose of computation of quantum of grant of gratuity, if the terms agreement are better than the statute, then the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT