Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

............................................................

(e) There shall be no ceiling or limit on the amount of gratuity payable."

It is the admitted position that the writ petitioners have been promoted as "executives" from "non-executive" posts held by them during their tenure of service.

At this juncture, one may take notice of the provisions of the SAIL Gratuity Rules, which came into force on 08th August, 1978. The earlier Gratuity Rules, which were introduced in the company by Hindustan Steel Ltd. in the year 1966, were made applicable to the employees of the SAIL.

Clause 2.0 of the SAIL Gratuity Rules deals with the scope of the Rules and says as follows:-

"2.0 SCOPE:
These rules shall apply to all employees of the Company except casual employees, Government servants and other employed on deputation terms, Apprentices and Foreign Technicians.
DECISION These Rules are applicable to all employees of the Company in so far as they may be inconsistent with the provisions of the Payment and Gratuity Act and Rules framed thereunder and the NJCS Agreement. Provisions from NJCS Agreement, 1983 are reproduced :
........................................................."

In this context, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of J.R.Lilariya vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai and Anr. (supra) has held that an employee gets the right to receive gratuity only on termination of his employment, either on superannuation, retirement or resignation or on death or disablement due to accident or disease. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in that matter was considering a case of an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant of SAIL, who was initially appointed as Assistant (Store and Purchase). This employee had put in 38 years of service on various posts, before being superannuated. 22 months prior to his superannuation, he was promoted to the "executive" cadre. The grievance of the employee was that although he had worked in a "non-executive"

The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra), which has been relied on by the learned advocate for SAIL, also goes into the issue involved in the present writ petitions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Steel Executives' Federation of India & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. held, inter alia, as follows :-
22
"It is crystal clear that payment of gratuity to the non- executive employees is being made by the respondent on terms of Gratuity Rules read with the agreement arrived at National Level whereas. Executive employees are being paid gratuity in terms of Gratuity Rules. The Classification nearly, extending better benefit/ advantage to the non-executive employees thereon purchaser of negotiation and agreement allowed of between the management and the Union of India prentive circle which is permissible under the provision of Section 405 of the Act. The validity of the said provision of Sub-section (5) of the Section 4 of the act is not under challenge in that writ petition. In the present case, therefore, there is a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved in extending better terms of activity to the3 non-executive Employee in pursuance of the agreement and in terms of subscription the be of Section 4 on the Act. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion. That there is no irresponsible classification in the present case and that the submission of the satisfied counsel for the petitioner it without case."