University of Delhi v. Dropti Devi & Ors.

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.09.2014 passed by learned Appellate Authority and order dated 18.03.2014 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Central University which came into existence by virtue of Delhi University Act, 1922 and the said Act has specific provisions under its Statute 28- A for the payment of gratuity to its employees and the respondent No.2, i.e. University Grants Commission (UGC), with the approval of respondents No.3, i.e.. Ministry of HRD introduced the provisions of payment of gratuity to the employees of Delhi University through Central Universities Retirement Benefit Rules, 1967. The employees of the petitioner are, thus, governed by the said provisions under its WP(C) 483/2015 Page 1 of[5] 2015:DHC:11578

4. Statute 28-A for payment ofgratuity and accordingly, the employees of the petitioner are being paid gratuity as per the same along with the Rules as aforesaid read with CCS Pension Rules.

3. The respondent No.l is an ex-employee of the petitioner who retired on 30.09.1999 and was accordingly paid a sum of Rs.2,10,227/towards gratuity, under Statute 28-A read with Central Universities Retirement Benefit Rules, 1967 and CCS Pension Rules, i.e., as per the provisions for payment ofgratuity applicable to the petitioner.

4. The respondent No.l moved an application for grant of difference of gratuity amount claiming it under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before Controlling Authority. Vide impugned order dated 18.03.2014, Controlling Authority gave a finding that the payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the petitioner and, thus, the respondent No.l was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.61,744/- towards balance gratuity and the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum within thirty days from the date ofreceipt ofthe order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable in view of Statute 28-A of Delhi University Act, 1922 for the purpose ofgratuity.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fiirther submits that the petitioner had approached Ministry of Labour and Employment for grant of exemption to the employees of University of Delhi from the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the request of petitioner was rejected. The same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.S-42014/01/2013-SS.II dated 19^21''Januaiy, 2015. WP(C) 483/2015 Page 2 of[5]

7. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to reproduce relevant Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads as under:- "14. Act to override other enactments, etc.—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. "

8. The Apex Court in 'Allahabad Bank versus All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association', (2010) 2 SCC 44, observed as under:- "14. A plain reading ofthe provisions referred to hereinabove makes it abundantly clear that there is no escapefrom payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Act unless the establishment is granted exemption from the operation of the provisions ofthe Act by the appropriate Government. xxxx xxxx xxxx

31. No establishment can decide for itself that employees in such establishments were in receipt ofgratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act.

32. This Court in MCDv. Dharam Prakash Sharma [(1998) 7 SCC 221:1998 SCC (L&S) 1800] observed: "2.... The mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension Rules will not disentitle him to get the payment ofgratuity under the Payment ofGratuity Act. In view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 14 ofthe Payment of Gratuity Act, the provisionfor gratuity under the Pension Rules will have no effect..... " WP(C) 483/2015 Page 3 of[5]

9. Inanother case 'Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank', (2013) 3 see 472, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt ofIndia had observed:- "22. A perusal of Section 14 leaves no room for any doubt that a superior status has been vested in the provisions ofthe Gratuity Act vis-a-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 ofan employee is not regulated under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the legislature having vested superiority to the provisions ofthe 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 theforce oflaw" shall most definitely be deemed to include the 1995 Regulations, which regulate the payment ofgratuity to the appellant."

10. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(Civil) No.5138/2014 titled as 'University of Delhi v. Sharwan Kumar Gupta and Others' wherein it was held:- "16. The Payment ofGratuity Act, 1972 is a complete code in itself. It is clear from the law and the judgments mentioned above that Provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall have overriding effect on all otherprovisions relating to Gratuity.

XXX XXX XXX

18. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted that Delhi University Act, 1922 and State ordinances are statutory in nature, however. Section 14 ofPayment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has overriding effectover the other Acts, Statutes and Regulations. WP(C)483/2015 Page 4 of[5]