Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of law what reflects is that even the aforesaid clause also clearly stipulates that an officer or an employee of the Bank shall be entitled for gratuity either under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or as per the Sub-Clause 2 of the Clause 72 of the Regulation of 2013 whichever fetches more monetary benefits to an employee or an officer.

20. Now coming to the mode of calculation as per the sub clause 3 of the Regulation of 2013 the term "Pay" has been used for the purpose of calculating the gratuity to an officer. As we can see that it is mentioned that it shall be one Month's pay for every completed year of service. That it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the fact that so far as the third proviso to Sub Clause 3 of Clause 72 envisages that for the purpose of calculating the gratuity in respect of an employee pay for the calculation shall be average of Basic pay, Dearness allowance and special allowances and officiating allowances payable during the last 12 month's of the service. What is note worthy at this juncture is that the framers of the said provisions has clearly mentioned that in the case of an employee it shall be the basic pay with Dearness allowance and special allowance which means so far as calculation of gratuity for an officer is concerned, there is no break up of the definition of pay provided and it is the general term of "Pay" which has been used for calculating the gratuity. As in the case of an employee the framers of the regulation could have also specifically said that the calculation of gratuity for an officer would be one month's of basic pay and other specific allowance. The fact that they have not specifically held that it would be one month of 'basic pay' rather it is one month of 'pay' means there is a deliberate and conscious exclusion of term 'basic pay' from Sub Clause 3 of Clause 72 so far as officers are concerned.

25.Neither in the present bunch of writ petitions nor before the Controlling Authority or before the Appellate Authority the petitioners have not been able to show any document by it which could be established that Dearness Allowance firstly is not an emolument and secondly if at all if it is an emolument it is not one which has been specifically classified as pay under Regulation, 2013. The definition of pay under the Regulations specifically envisages that an emolument unless it may specifically be classified as pay under these regulations it would not be part of Pay for calculating Gratuity. This would clearly mean that petitioner Bank when they decided to pay certain emolument to officers or a category of an officer or an employee it would simultaneously decide whether it would form part of pay or not. No such document whatsoever has been produced by the petitioner Bank in the three stages of litigation.

26.Another aspect which needs to be considered is the fact that if the framers of the regulation intended that gratuity for the officer were to be calculated based upon their basic pay alone it would had been simply reflected in Sub Clause 3 of Clause 72 one month's basic pay for every completed year of service as is specifically mentioned in the other proviso of Sub clause 3 for the purpose of calculating gratuity for an employee. The fact that term pay has been used itself gives sufficient indication that framers of the regulation intended the general term pay and it was not just confined to the basic pay alone. This also has to be seen as a deliberate exclusion of basic pay while framing sub Section 3. In other words, the framers of the regulation had taken the term pay in broader perspective rather than giving it restrictive or narrow meaning confined to the term basic pay.

(23) The matter may be viewed from another angle. The provision relating to grant of gratuity is a beneficiary provision. It must be considered on the anvil of beneficent rule of construction. It is trite law that in the matter of welfare legislation, especially involving the work force, the terms of contract and the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of weak. {See: Workmen of Binny Ltd. v. Management of Binny Ltd., reported in 1985 (4) SCC 325; Indian Bank vs. K. Usha, reported in AIR 1998 SC 866.}. (24) In view of aforesaid analysis, in the considered opinion of this Court the respondents have erred in not including DA while calculating gratuity under the Regulations. Thus, respondents are directed to include DA and recalculate the gratuity of the petitioners and pay the difference arising thereto to the petitioners within 60 days from the date of communication of this order. Since, employer has not taken into account the DA for calculating gratuity because of a genuine interpretation problem which is not based on any other reasons like lethargy or inaction, I am not inclined to grant interest on such payment of gratuity to the petitioners."