Allahabad High Court
M.D./Chairman Administrative ... vs Shri Krishna Bihari Yadav & Anr. on 23 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1823, (2019) 11 ADJ 99 (ALL), (2020) 164 FACLR 43, (2020) 1 ALL WC 217
Author: Vivek Chaudhary
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Reserved Court No. - 23 1. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20659 of 2019 Petitioner :- M.D./Chairman Administrative Committee/Occupier Lko. & Anr. Respondent :- Shri Krishna Bihari Yadav & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar,Arvind Kumar Pandey,Sridhar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu connected with 2. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19524 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Authorized Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lko. & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Sahu 3. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19521 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Authorized Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lko. & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Sahu 4. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19553 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 5. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19573 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Misrha,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 6. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19592 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 7. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19540 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Authorized Respondent :- Asst. Labopur Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Atma Ram Mishra,Anupam Mishra,Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 8. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19577 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 9. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19518 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Authorized Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lko. & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Sahu 10. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19563 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 11. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19584 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 12. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19589 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Misrha,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 13. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19536 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Authorized Respondent :- Asst. Labopur Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Atma Ram Mishra,Anupam Mishra,Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 14. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19538 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Authorized Respondent :- Asst. Labopur Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 15. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19567 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 16. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19580 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop.Dairy Federation Ltd Thru Authorized Represe- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 17. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19681 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 18. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19685 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 19. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19714 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 20. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19725 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 21. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19728 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 22. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19732 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 23. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19738 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 24. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19741 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 25. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19676 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 26. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19710 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 27. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19718 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 28. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19722 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 29. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19736 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 30. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19743 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 31. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 19746 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Authorized Repre- Respondent :- Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority & Anors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Anupam Mishra,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N. Tripathi,M.K. Sahu 32. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20630 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 33. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20632 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 34. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20634 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 35. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20691 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 36. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20700 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 37. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20738 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 38. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20741 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 39. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20747 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 40. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20637 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 41. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20640 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 42. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20697 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 43. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20699 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 44. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20735 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 45. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20737 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 46. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20740 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 47. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20746 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 48. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20598 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 49. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20600 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 50. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20633 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 51. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20636 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 52. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20686 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 53. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20690 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 54. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20692 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 55. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20705 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 56. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20708 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 57. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20720 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 58. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20688 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 59. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20687 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 60. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20641 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 61. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20694 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 62. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20702 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 63. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20706 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 64. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20744 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 65. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20742 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 66. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20718 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Auth. Repr Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority Lucknow &Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi,Atma Ram Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.N.Tripathi,M.K.Sahu 67. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21780 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru M.D./ Chairman - Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commis. Meerut/Controlling Authority & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 68. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21705 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 69. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21852 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru M.D./ Chairman - Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commis. Meerut/Controlling Authority & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 70. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21699 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 71. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21703 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 72. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21775 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru Dr. M. Sudhir - Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commis. Meerut/Controlling Authority & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 73. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21801 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru M.D./ Chairman - Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commis. Meerut/Controlling Authority & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 74. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21810 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru M.D./ Chairman - Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commis. Meerut/Controlling Authority & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 75. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21704 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 76. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21805 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru M.D./ Chairman - Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commis. Meerut/Controlling Authority & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 77. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21700 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 78. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21706 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 79. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21848 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru M.D./ Chairman - Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commis. Meerut/Controlling Authority & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 80. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21696 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 81. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21697 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 82. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21701 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 83. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21707 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 84. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 21844 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru M.D./ Chairman - Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commis. Meerut/Controlling Authority & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 85. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22080 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 86. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22084 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 87. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22087 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 88. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22090 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 89. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22082 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 90. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22085 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 91. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22089 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 92. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22091 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 93. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 22263 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Thru. Dr. Sudhir Respondent :- Asst. Labour Commissioner Meerut/Controlling Authority & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
1. This bunch of writ petitions is filed by petitioner, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PCDF'), challenging the orders of different dates and notices for payment of gratuity passed and issued by the Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Lucknow (respondent no.2) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
2. The relevant facts are that on 24.09.2015, petitioner PCDF introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Amongst other conditions, the VRS scheme in clause-3(kha) provided that the employees adopting the same will be paid gratuity as per the gratuity scheme applicable in PCDF. On 30.09.2015 a clarification to the VRS scheme was issued, Clause-1 whereof clarified that as per the clause 28-Sa(3) of the gratuity scheme the maximum limit of gratuity amount payable shall be Rs.3.5 Lakhs. All the respondents/employees applied under the aforesaid VRS scheme and in and around February, 2016 they all accepted their VRS amounts, including Rs.3.5 Lakhs as their gratuity. In and around May, 2017, representations were made for payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, 1972 which was claimed to be Rs.6.5 Lakhs. Since no action was taken on the representations made, therefore, in December, 2017 applications were filed before the respondent no.2, Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act, 1972. Objections were taken to the said application by the petitioner-PCDF. All the aforesaid applications stand allowed by the impugned orders and, thereafter notices were also issued for payment of the gratuity amount as per the Gratuity Act, 1972. While allowing the representations the Controlling Authority has also condoned the delay in filing the claim applications. The said orders and notices are under consideration before this Court in the present bunch of petitions
3. The chronology of relevant law is that U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Co-operative Societies Act') was enforced in the State of U.P. w.e.f. 26.01.1968 by way of notification dated 30.12.1967 (except Section 135 of the same). The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Gratuity Act') was notified and came into force from 16.09.1972. Section 121 of the Co-operative Societies Act reads:-
"121. Power of Registrar to determine terms of employment of society. - (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame regulation to regulate the emoluments and other conditions of service including the disciplinary control of employees in a co-operative society or a class of co-operative societies and any society to which such terms are applicable, shall comply with those regulations and with any orders of the Registrar, issued to secure such compliance.
(2) The regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be published in the Gazette and take effect from the date of such publication."
4. In exercise of power under Section 121 of the Co-operative Societies Act, Registrar framed the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 1975'). The Regulations of 1975 were notified by notification dated 31.12.1975. Regulation 121(2) states "they shall take effect from the date of their publication in the U.P. gazette", thus, they came into force from 06.01.1976, the date of their publication. Again in exercise of power under Section 121(1) of Co-operative Societies Act, U.P. Co-operative Dairy Federation Employees Service Regulations, 2010 were notified and published on 08.09.2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations of 2010'). Initially the said Regulations of 2010 were shown as issued by the Governor. An objection was raised by the opposite parties that the same were issued by the State Government which has power only under Section 122 of the Co-operative Societies Act, therefore, the same cannot be treated to be issued by the Registrar under Section 121 of the Co-operative Societies Act. It was further argued by the opposite parties that under Section 122 the State Government only has power to constitute an authority or authorities for recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of co-operative society and not to frame regulations to regulate their emoluments and conditions of service. During pendency of the petition a corrigendum was also issued and notified on 07.08.2019 whereby an amendment was made to the Regulations of 2010 providing them to have been issued by the Registrar.
5. Counsel for the petitioner Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, Sri Manoj Kumar, Sri Pankaj Patel, Sri Anupam Mishra and Sri A.R. Mishra, Advocates, has made strong submissions challenging the validity of the orders passed by the controlling authority. Sri Amarnath Tripathi, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents/employees have also argued at great length supporting the impugned orders.
6. During course of the arguments, petitioner also filed four supplementary affidavits bringing on record additional documents, which were not filed by the petitioner before the controlling authority. With the consent of respondents all the said documents were also permitted to be relied upon by the petitioner, to finally decide this long pending controversy with regard to the law applicable for payment of gratuity between the PCDF and its employees.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has disputed the applicability of the Gratuity Act upon the employees of the PCDF. His first submission is that it is the Co-operative Societies Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, being special Act, which will apply with regard to all the service conditions, including payment of gratuity, of the employees of PCDF and, therefore, the Gratuity Act cannot be applied.
8. The second ground of challenge raised by the counsel for petitioner is that the PCDF had, for the purposes of payment of gratuity of its employees, framed a scheme, constituted a trust and also framed rules under the said scheme and had also taken a Master Group Gratuity and Insurance Policy from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). Thus, the gratuity could be paid to the employees only under the aforesaid policy and not under the Gratuity Act.
9. Since the second question depends more upon facts, hence, I find it appropriate to consider the same first.
10. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that in the meeting of the Executive Council dated 01/02.12.1975, under Item no.18, an agenda with regard to payment of gratuity to employees was proposed and a resolution was passed and a scheme framed. Counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that at present the trust deed, despite their best efforts, is not available. He submits that however, a trust was created as is reflected from the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors dated 25/26.10.1978, wherein at Item No.17 new trustees were appointed. He also refers to the resolution dated 11.02.1991 of the Administrative Committee of PCDF where at Item No.9 an approval was granted to the aforesaid scheme, applicable in PCDF since 1976, and it was also approved that the gratuity amount shall be paid as per the directions of the State government issued from time to time. It also approved the rules framed under the gratuity scheme. The said rules are annexed with the aforesaid resolution dated 11.02.1991 and are also referred to by the counsel for the petitioner. Reliance is also placed upon the resolution of the Administrative Committee meeting dated 13.06.1997 wherein under Item No.18, limit on payment of gratuity was extended from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.2.5 Lakhs. The master policy taken with the LIC was also relied upon, filed along with the supplementary affidavit. Large number of documents were also referred to show that newly appointed employees were, from time to time, included in the master insurance policy taken with the LIC.
11. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, counsel for the petitioner submits that PCDF had framed its own scheme for the payment of gratuity to its employees and under the said scheme they had also constituted a trust, framed its rules and taken a master policy from the LIC and the employees can be paid their gratuity only as per the said scheme, rules and the master policy and, therefore, they are not liable and cannot be forced to pay anything more than what is covered by the master policy. Reliance is also placed upon the letter/circular dated 13.09.2002 issued by the Milk Commissioner, lastly enhancing the limit of gratuity payable to employees to Rs.3.50 Lakhs.
12. The aforesaid gratuity scheme in PCDF has come into force on the basis of the resolution no.18 of the executive council of the PCDF in its meeting dated 01/02.02.1975. The said agenda and resolution reads:-
18- xzsPkqVh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr deZpkfj;ksa dks xszpqVh ;kstuk dh lqfo/kk iznku djus gsrq ftlesa VªLV dk fuekZ.k gksuk gS rFkk xszpqVh dh /kujkf'k tks deZpkfj;ksa dks le; le; ij ns; gksxh ds mRRkjnkbRo dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ykbQ bUlksjsUl dkjiksjs'ku n~okjk izLrqr ;kstuk dh Lohd`fr ij fopkjA fopkj foe'kZ i'pkr xzsPkqVh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr Lohd`r thou chek fuxe n~okjk izLrqr ;kstuk dks ykxw djus gsrq Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZA lfpo xzzspqVh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izkfof/kr VªLV dk xBu Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk dh Hkkafr ifjiw.kZ djsa rFkk ;kstuk ds dk;kZU;ou lEcU/kh vkSj vU; vko';dh; dk;Zokgh djsaA The resolution translates as 'after consideration, the scheme proposed by the Life Insurance Corporation under the Gratuity Act is approved to be applied. The secretary will complete the formalities for creation of the prescribed trust under the Gratuity Act in a similar manner as was done for the provident fund scheme and will also take other required actions for its implementation'.
13. The said agenda and resolution specifically state that the scheme shall be prepared for enforcing the provisions of the Gratuity Act. The resolution further provides that the trust shall also be constituted as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act. Thus, it is clear that the executive council resolved to enforce the provisions of the Gratuity Act and also directed the scheme to be framed and the trust to be created for giving effect to the provisions of the Gratuity Act. Neither the scheme nor the master policy, filed by the petitioner, anywhere state that they are created under the Co-operative Societies Act or the Regulations of 1975 or the Regulations of 2010.
14. Counsel for the petitioner also could not show from the record that the resolution dated 01/02.12.1975 of Executive Council was ever modified or withdrawn. He could not show anything at all to prove that ever any decision was taken, at any level whatsoever, to pay gratuity as per the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act or the Regulations of 1975 or the Regulations of 2010. Thus, from the record of PCDF it is proved that Executive Council of the PCDF took a decision to enforce the provisions of the Gratuity Act. The said decision was never modified and, thus, today they cannot turn back and say that the provision of the Gratuity Act are not applicable. Further, the circular dated 13.09.2002 issued by the Milk Commissioner also states that, since by amendment in the Gratuity Act the maximum limit of the gratuity payable is enhanced to Rs.3.50 Lakhs, therefore, the same enhanced limit of Rs.3.50 Lakhs is approved to be applied on the officers/employees of PCDF. The said circular also shows that even in 2002 the modification in the Gratuity Act was made applicable without any reference to any other scheme.
15. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The resolution of Executive Council is dated 01/02.12.1975. The Regulations of 1975 came into force from 06.01.1976 i.e. from the date of publication of notification (even if taken from the date of notification, the same comes to 31.12.1975). Thus, on 01/02.12.1975 there were no service Regulations enforced, and thus, there is no question of a decision being taken for the payment of gratuity under the said Regulations. There is no such decision taken thereafter to pay gratuity under any regulations. For the said reason also, it cannot now be argued by the petitioner that the scheme, rules and the master policy for payment of gratuity is under the Regulations of 1975 and is not for enforcement of the Gratuity Act.
16. Coming back to the first submission of counsel for petitioner, that the Co-operative Societies Act is a special act for the purposes of employees of the co-operative societies and under the same, in exercise of power under Section 121, the Registrar has framed service Regulations, which also provides for the payment of gratuity and, therefore, it is the Co-operative Societies Act and the service Regulations which would be applicable for payment of gratuity on its employees and not the provisions of the Gratuity Act. Strong reliance is placed by the petitioner upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and Others (2007) 11 SCC 756 and upon the Single Judge judgments of this Court in case of Brahamvartha Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal III, U.P. Kanpur (2012) 134 FLR 574, Sikta Mahoogarh Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Prescribed Authority (Payment of Wages Act) and others (2015) 144 FLR 23, unreported judgment of this Court dated 07.04.2017 passed in Writ-C No.184 of 1999 M/S Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. through G.M. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-Ii Meerut and another, unreported judgment of this Court dated 03.08.2016 passed in Writ-A No.14364 of 2016; Sugvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others and other connected matters and judgment passed in Case of Shobhai Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2014) 142 FLR 457. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment in case of P. Rajan Sandhi Vs. Union of India; (2010) 10 SCC 338, where a comparison was made between the provisions of Working Journalists Act, 1955 and the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act.
17. Counsels for the opposite parties, disputing the said submission of petitioner, have placed reliance upon the unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court, dated 09.04.2002 in Writ Petition No.1427 of 2000 Dr. Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Cadere Authority U.P. Coop. Dairy Federation and Milk Union, Centralised Services and others and other connected matters and judgments of Supreme Court in case of Y.K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others (2013) 136 FLR 1087, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma (1999) 81 FLR 867, State of Punjab Vs. the Labour Court, Jullundur and Others (1979) 39 FLR 353.
18. Counsels for the respondents have also strongly disputed the correctness of the judgments of this Court relied upon by the petitioner, based upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited (Supra) on the ground that none of them have considered the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Raj Kumar Singh (Supra) and other judgment of Supreme Court. Counsels for the respondents state that the entire compilation of documents with regard to applicability of gratuity i.e. the scheme, the master policy, the rules etc. were never placed before any of the earlier Courts. They, simply going by one line in the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited (Supra), which says that the Regulations of 1975 would take effect over any other labour laws, without even looking into the issue as to which Act would be the special Act, have passed the judgments. Respondents counsels submit that even the law settled in the Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited case (Supra) goes against the petitioners and the other Supreme Court judgments, relied upon by them, settles the issue of the primacy of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
19. So far as the judgments in cases of Brahamvartha Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), Sikta Mahoogarh Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (supra), M/S Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. through G.M. (supra), Sugvir Singh (supra) are concerned, they all follow the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in case of Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited (Supra). In the aforesaid judgment, proceedings were initiated by the workman under Section 33-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court had occasion to compare provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act for the purposes of service conditions of the employees of a co-operative society. The relevant portion of paragraph-61, 63, 64 reads as follows:-
"61. The general legal principle in interpretation of statutes is that 'the general Act should lead to the special Act'. Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U.P legislature is clear, that the special enactment UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965,, 1965 alone should apply in the matter of employment of Co-operative Societies to the exclusion of all other Labour Laws. It is a complete code in itself as regards employment in co-operative societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act the UPID Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the UPCS Act. This is also clear from necessary implication that the legislature could not have intended 'head-on-conflict and collision' between authorities under different Acts.............
63. Also if we refer to the general principles of Statutory Interpretation as discussed by G.P.Singh, in his treatise on 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation', we can observe that, a prior general Act may be affected by a subsequent particular or special Act if the subject-matter of the particular Act prior to its enforcement was being governed by the general provisions of the earlier Act. In such a case the operation of the particular Act may have the effect of partially repealing the general Act, or curtailing its operation, or adding conditions to its operation for the particular cases. The distinction may be important at times for determining the applicability of those provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897, (Interpretation Act, 1889 of U.K. now Interpretation Act, 1978) which apply only in case of repeals.
64. A general Act's operation may be curtailed by a later Special Act even if the general Act will be more readily inferred when the later Special Act also contains an overriding non-obstante provision. Section 446(1) of the Companies Act 1956 (Act 1 of 1956) provides that when the winding up order is passed or the official liquidator is appointed as a provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of winding up order shall be proceeded with against the company except by leave of the Court. Under Section 446(2), the company Court, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force is given jurisdiction to entertain any suit, proceeding or claim by or against the company and decide any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in the course of the winding up. The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Act 31 of 1956) constituted a Tribunal and Section 15 of the Act enabled the Life Insurance Corporation to file a case before the tribunal for recovery of various amounts from the erstwhile Life Insurance Companies in certain respects. Section 41 of the LIC Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the tribunal in these matters. On examination of these Acts, it was held that the provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the tribunal being provisions of the Special Act i.e. the LIC Act prevailed over the aforesaid provisions of the general Act, viz., the Companies Act which is an Act relating to Companies in general and, therefore, the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with a claim of the Life Insurance Corporation against a former insurer which had been ordered to be wound up by the Company Court. This case was followed in giving to the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 (RDB Act) overriding effect over the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The RDB Act constitutes a tribunal and by sections 17 and 18 confers upon the tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts (defined to mean any liability which is claimed as due). The Act also lays down the procedure for recovery of the debt as per the certificate issued by the tribunal. The provisions of the RDB Act, which is a special Act, were held to prevail over sections 442, 446, 537 and other sections of the Companies Act which is a general Act, more so because Section 34 of the RDB Act gives over-riding effect to that Act by providing that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force."
20. The Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 09.04.2002 in Writ Petition No.1427 of 2000 Dr. Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Cadere Authority U.P. Coop. Dairy Federation and Milk Union, Centralised Services and others and other connected matters, has held:-
"The payment of gratuity is governed by Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended from time to time. In view of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishment in a State in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months shall fall under the provisions of the said Act. It is not in dispute, rather it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that PCDF is an establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in U.P. Cooperative Union and others Vs. Prabhu Dayal Srivastava and Others, 1988 UPLBEC 391. in which it has been held that the term 'establishment' as used under Section 1(3)(b) or 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act includes a cooperative society also and thus the employees of the cooperative society are entitled for payment of gratuity. We have no reason to take a different view in the present case, as no such argument has been advanced. Once it is established that the petitioners were working in an establishment, the Payment of Gratuity Act becomes applicable to them. The Act itself provides the manner of payment of gratuity. The Payment of Gratuity Act defines "employee" in section 2(e) which means any person (other than an 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, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. The payment of gratuity has been provided in section 4 of the Act, which reads as under:-
4.(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;
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement :
Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to the heirs.
EXPLANATION.- For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement.
(2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned :
Provided that in the case of piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account :
Provided further that in the case of an employee employed in a seasonal establishment, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season.
(3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed twenty months' wages.
(4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced.
(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.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-
(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused;
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee shall be wholly forfeited,-
(i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or
(ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.
Power to exempt vests in the appropriate Government under Section 5 of the Act, which provides as under:-
5. (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act, if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the employees in such establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favorable than the benefits conferred under this Act.
(2) The appropriate Government may, by notification, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any employee or class of employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act, if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the employees in such establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favorable than the benefits conferred under this Act.
(3)..................................................................................................................................
There is no provision under the Act which vests power in any authority to exempt payment of gratuity to the employees of any establishment, who are otherwise covered by the provisions of this Act other than the appropriate Government. The power to exempt may include the power to exempt an establishment from payment of gratuity in toto or may regulate the payment of gratuity at different scales but this power cannot be exercised either by the Society or by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Registrar cannot be substituted in place of the 'appropriate Government'. The term 'appropriate Government' has also been defined under section 2(a) of the Act; which does not include the Registrar.
The applicability of Regulation 95 Chapter VIII of the Regulations of 1975 can also not be of any assistance to the respondents in view of the over-riding effect given to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act under Section 14. Section 14 of the Act reads as under:-
"14. 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."
Besides this, what should be the amount of gratuity and how much amount should be paid to an employee of an establishment covered by Payment of Gratuity Act has been provided under section 4 and section 7 of the Act. It is obligatory upon the employer of such establishment to make payment of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act. It is not the case of either of the parties that any exemption has been granted to the PCDF under Section 5 of the Act." (emphasis applied)
21. So far as the Single Judge judgments of this Court are concerned, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Dr. Raj Kumar Singh (Supra) was never placed before them, wherein this Court has held that it is the provisions of the Gratuity Act which would be applicable and the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act would not be applicable for the purpose of payment of gratuity to the employees of PCDF. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Division Bench is of the year 2004 and loses its relevance in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited (Supra), which is a later judgment dated 17.01.2007. The said judgment is considered in the later part of this judgment, after first referring to judgments of Supreme Court comparing the Gratuity Act with other legislations.
22. The first such instance was in case of State of Punjab Vs. The Labour Court, Jullundur and Others (1979) 39 FLR 353 (S.C.). In the said case the comparison was between the Gratuity Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the question was whether an employee can have recourse to Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for recovery of gratuity amount. The Court found that:-
"It is urged that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a self-contained code incorporating all the essential provisions relating to payment of gratuity which can be claimed under that Act, and its provisions impliedly exclude recourse to any other statute for that purpose. The contention has force and must be accepted. A careful perusal of the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act shows that Parliament has enacted a closely knit scheme providing for payment of gratuity. A controlling authority is appointed by the appropriate Government under section 3. and Parliament has made him responsible for the administration of the entire Act. In what event gratuity will become payable and how it will be quantified are detailed in section 4. Section 7(1) entitled a person eligible for payment of gratuity to apply in that behalf to the employer. Under section 7(2), the employer is obliged, as soon as gratuity becomes payable and whether an application has or has not been made for payment of gratuity, to determine the amount of gratuity and inform the person to whom the gratuity is payable specifying the amount of gratuity so determined. He is obliged, by virtue of the same provision, to inform the controlling authority also, thus ensuring that the controlling authority is seized at all times of information in regard to gratuity as it becomes payable. If a dispute is raised in regard to the amount of gratuity payable or as to the admissibility of any claim to gratuity, or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, section 7(4)(a) requires the employer to deposit with the controlling authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity. The controlling authority is empowered. under section 7(4)(b), to enter upon an adjudication of the dispute, and after due inquiry, and after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, he is required to determine the amount of gratuity payable. In this regard, the controlling authority has all the powers as are vested in a court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of obtaining evidentiary material and the recording of evidence. The amount deposited by the employer with the controlling authority as the admitted amount of gratuity will be paid over by the controlling authority to the employee or his nominee or heir. Section 7(7) provides an appeal against the order of the controlling authority under section 7(4)to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in that behalf. The appropriate Government or the appellate authority is empowered under section 7(8), after giving the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to confirm, modify or reverse the decision of the controlling authority. Where the amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer with in the prescribed time, the controlling authority is required by Section 8, on application made to it by the aggrieved person, to issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector. The Collector, thereupon, is empowered to recover the amount of gratuity, together with compound interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of expiry of the prescribed time, as arrears of land revenue, and pay the same to the person entitled thereto.
It is apparent that the Payment of Gratuity Act enacts a complete code containing detailed provisions covering all the essential features of a scheme for payment of gratuity. It creates the right to payment of gratuity, indicates when the right will accrue, and lays down the principles for quantification of the gratuity. It provides further for recovery of the amount, and contains an especial provision that compound interest at nine per cent per annum will be payable on delayed payment. For the enforcement of its provisions, the Act provides for the appointment of a controlling authority, who is entrusted with the task of administering the Act. The fulfilment of the rights and obligations of the parties are made his responsibility, and he has been invested with an amplitude of power for the full discharge of that responsibility. Any error committed by him can be corrected in appeal by the appropriate Government or an appellate authority particularly constituted under the Act.
Upon all these considerations, the conclusion is inescapable that Parliament intended that proceedings for payment of gratuity due under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be taken under that Act and not under any other. That being so, it must be held that the applications filed by the employee respondents under section 33-C(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act did not lie, and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of them. On that ground, this appeal must succeed."
23. Thus, after taking into consideration the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the Supreme Court found it to be a self contained court having effect over all other laws for the purposes of payment of gratuity to the employees. The next judgment is Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma (1999) 81 FLR 867 (S.C.). The same is a short judgment and paragraph-2 thereof reads:-
"2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether an employee of the MCD would be entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act when the MCD itself has adopted the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules"), whereunder there is a provision both for payment of pension as well as of gratuity. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this Court is that the payment of pension and gratuity under the Pension Rules is a package by itself and once that package is made applicable to the employees of the MCD, the provisions of payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be held applicable. We have examined carefully the provisions of the Pension Rules as well as the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Payment of Gratuity Act being a special provision for payment of gratuity, unless there is any provision therein which excludes its applicability to an employee who is otherwise governed by the provisions of the Pension Rules, it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent is not entitled to the gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The only provision which was pointed out is the definition of "employee" in Section 2(e) which excludes the employees of the Central Government and State Governments receiving pension and gratuity under the Pension Rules but not an employee of the MCD. The MCD employee, therefore, would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension Rules will not disentitle him to get the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the provision for gratuity under the Pension Rules will have no effect. Possibly for this reason, Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has conferred authority on the appropriate Government to exempt any establishment from the operation of the provisions of the Act, if in its opinion the employees of such establishment are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. Admittedly MCD has not taken any steps to invoke the power of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered opinion that the employees of the MCD would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the Pension Rules have been made applicable to them for the purpose of determining the pension. Needless to mention that the employees cannot claim gratuity available under the Pension Rules."
Thus, above clearly shows that despite the MCD adopting the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Court found, in view of overriding provisions contained in Section 14 of the Gratuity Act for the purposes of gratuity the Pension Rules will not apply. It also noted that MCD had not taken any steps to invoke power of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Gratuity Act for grant of exemption to it from the provisions of the said Act. In the present case also, counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that there is no exemption sought by the PCDF or granted by the appropriate Government to it under Section 5 of the Gratuity Act.
24. Again the Gratuity Act came up for comparison in case of Y.K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others (2013) 136 FLR 1087 (S.C.). One of the issues in the said case was as to whether the Gratuity Act or the 1995 Regulations of the bank would be applicable for determining the claim of gratuity. Paragraph-19 and 20 of the said judgment read:-
"19........... .................................
A perusal of Section 14 leaves no room for any doubt, that a superior status has been vested in the provisions of the Gratuity Act, vis-à-vis, any other enactment (including any other instrument or contract) inconsistent therewith. Therefore, insofar as the entitlement of an employee to gratuity is concerned, it is apparent that in cases where gratuity of an employee is not regulated under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the legislature having vested superiority to the provisions of the Gratuity Act over all other provisions/enactments (including any instrument or contract having the force of law), the provisions of the Gratuity Act cannot be ignored. The term "instrument" and the phrase "instrument or contract having the force of law" shall most definitely be deemed to include the 1995 Regulations, which regulate the payment of gratuity to the appellant.
20. Based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we shall endeavour to determine the present controversy. First and foremost, we have concluded on the basis of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act, that an employee has the right to make a choice of being governed by some alternative provision/instrument, other than the Gratuity Act, for drawing the benefit of gratuity. If an employee makes such a choice, he is provided with a statutory protection, namely, that the concerned employee would be entitled to receive better terms of gratuity under the said provision/instrument, in comparison to his entitlement under the Gratuity Act. Gratuity Act. This protection has been provided through Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act. Furthermore, from the mandate of Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, it is imperative to further conclude, that the provisions of the Gratuity Act would have overriding effect, with reference to any inconsistency therewith in any other provision or instrument. Thus viewed, even if the provisions of the 1995, Regulations, had debarred payment of interest on account of delayed payment of gratuity, the same would have been inconsequential. The benefit of interest enuring to an employee, as has been contemplated under section 7(3A) of the Gratuity Act, cannot be denied to an employee, whose gratuity is regulated by some provision/instrument other than the Gratuity Act. This is so because, the terms of payment of gratuity under the alternative instrument has to ensure better terms, than the ones provided under the Gratuity Act. The effect would be the same, when the concerned provision is silent on the issue. This is so, because the instant situation is not worse than the one discussed above, where there is a provision expressly debarring payment of interest in the manner contemplated under Section 7(3A) of the Gratuity Act. Therefore, even though the 1995, Regulations, are silent on the issue of payment of interest, the appellant would still be entitled to the benefit of Section 7(3A) of the Gratuity Act. If such benefit is not extended to the appellant, the protection contemplated under section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act would stand defeated. Likewise, even the mandate contained in section 14 of the Gratuity Act, deliberated in detail hereinabove, would stand negated. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding, that even though the provisions of the 1995, Regulations, are silent on the issue of payment of interest, the least that the appellant would be entitled to, are terms equal to the benefits envisaged under the Gratuity Act. Under the Gratuity Act, the appellant would be entitled to interest, on account of delayed payment of gratuity (as has already been concluded above). We therefore hold, that the appellant herein is entitled to interest on account of delayed payment, in consonance with sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act. We, accordingly, direct the PNB to pay to the appellant, interest at "...the rate notified by the Central Government for repayment of long term deposits...". In case no such notification has been issued, we are of the view, that the appellant would be entitled to interest, as was awarded to him by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 4.5.2011, i.e., interest at the rate of 8%. The PNB is directed, to pay the aforesaid interest to the appellant, within one month of the appellant's furnishing to the PNB a certified copy of the instant order. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.50,000/-, for having had to incur expenses before the Writ Court, before the Division Bench, and finally before this Court. The aforesaid costs shall also be disbursed to the appellant within the time indicated hereinabove."
25. After taking into consideration Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, the Supreme Court again came to the conclusion that provisions of the Gratuity Act would have an over-riding effect over any other provisions of law. Again the matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in case of Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Vs. Mujib Ullah Khan and another (2019) 161 FLR 503 (S.C.). In the said case, the issue as to whether U.P. Municipal Corporation Rules, 1962 would be applicable for payment of Gratuity vis-a-vis the Gratuity Act. The Supreme Court in paragraph-11 and 14, finding that Section 14 of the Act gives an over-riding effect over any other inconsistence provision and any other documents, concluded that the provision of the Gratuity Act would be applicable to the local bodies also. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
14. The entire argument of the appellant is that the State Act confers 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. Such is the view taken by the Controlling Authority."
26. From all the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court it is clear that whenever an issue came before the Supreme Court with regard to applicability of the Gratuity Act vis-a-vis any other law, finding the Gratuity Act to be a special Act having over-riding effect on other laws, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Gratuity Act would over-ride any other law.
27. Now coming to the two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited (Supra) and P. Rajan Sandhi Vs. Union of India (supra). So far as the judgment of the Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited (Supra) is concerned, in the said case, the conflict was between the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Co-operative Societies Act. U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a general Act with regard to conditions of services of employees of all the industrial establishments,whereas Co-operative Societies Act is a special Act with regard to one type of such industrial establishments, i.e., Co-operative Societies. But Co-operative Societies Act (1965) deals with all the service conditions of its employees. Well aware of the same, with regard to one of the service conditions, that is payment of gratuity, the legislature thereafter came out with the Gratuity Act in 1972. Therefore, for the subject of payment of gratuity, it is the Gratuity Act which is a special Act. Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Gratuity Act settles that supremacy finally. Further, so far as the judgment in case of P. Rajan Sandhi Vs. Union of India (supra) is concerned, the reading of the said judgment shows that while considering the same, counsels failed to place Section 14 of the Gratuity Act and the earlier afore-referred judgments of the Supreme Court, on the basis of which all the above judgments are given by the Supreme Court, holding the Gratuity Act to be a special Act.
28. So far as the present case is concerned, the Co-operative Societies Act is an earlier enactment of the year 1965. Well aware of the provisions of the same, the legislature came out with the Payment of Gratuity Act in the year 1972. Section 14 of the Gratuity Act provides that "the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistence 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." Section 14 is a very widely worded provision. It over-rides all the earlier enactments or instruments/contracts created under them. The only exemption available could be under Section 5 of the Gratuity Act, where power is given to the appropriate Government to grant exemption by way of a notification. Admittedly, no such exemption under Section 5 of the Gratuity Act is notified by the State Government. Thus, it is the provisions of the Gratuity Act which will have an over-riding effect over and above the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act. Similarly, no document or contract, be it the V.R.S. signed by the parties, would come in way of application of the Gratuity Act in view of Section 14 of the same.
29. Lastly a feeble attempt was made to argue that the PCDF is not in financial position to pay the gratuity amount as directed by the competent authority. The payment of gratuity is a statutory responsibility of the petitioner. They cannot simply say that they are not in a financial position to pay the same. It was their statutory duty to make provisions for the same and, hence, this Court cannot interfere with regard to a statutory liability merely on the ground that the petitioner is financially not in a position to pay the same.
30. In view thereof, it is held that it is the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and not the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 or Regulations framed thereunder which would be applicable. Any contract, i.e., the signing of the voluntarily retirement scheme or any other instrument would also not come in way, in view of Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, for the purposes of payment of gratuity by the petitioner to the respondent-employees. Hence, no case for interference with the impugned orders and notices is made out.
31. Thus, all these writ petitions having no force, are dismissed.
Order Date :-23.10.2019 Arti/-
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)