# Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank v. The Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 863
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-08
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 7163 of 2012
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/baroda-uttar-pradesh-gramin-bank-v-the-appellate-authority-under-payment-of-44845
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 2(s) -
Service law - Baroda Uttar Pradesh
Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees)
Services
Regulations,2008-Regualtion
2(o)-employee of bank-Branch Managerpayment of gratuity after retirement-the
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
formula that should have been applied
would be that of the Regulations of 2008
for calculation of gratuity as given under
Regulation 63(3)(ii), and the 'pay' should
have been taken as is defined under
Regulation
2(o)-Simultaneously,the
calculation should have also been made
on the basis of 'wages' as defined under
secion 2(s) of the Act 1972 on the basis of
formula given under Section 4(2) of the
Act-this would have resulted in a fair
picture as to what the employee was
entitled under the Regulations of 2008
and as to what the employee was entitled
under the Act of 1972. (Para 7 to25)

B. The Act of 1972 however had put
statutory ceiling limit of Rs. 3,50,000/-,
therefore, the Bank's calculation as per
Regulation of 2008 for the amount of
gratuity payable to respondent was
indeed the best deal for the employee
and the same was given in a bonafide
manner by the petitioner-Bank. (Para 26
to 28)

Writ petition allowed (E-6)

## Text

3 All. Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs. The Appellate Authority Under Gratuiry Act & Ors.
863

Entrustment is an essential
ingredient of the offence. A person who
dishonestly
misappropriates
property
entrusted to them contrary to the terms of
an obligation imposed is liable for a
criminal breach of trust and is punished
under Section 406 of the Penal Code."

16. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court and as quoted
above, what is to be seen is whether there
was any allegation of entrustment of
property or dominion over the property
and whether there was any allegation of
dishonest, misappropriation of the said
property. A bare perusal of the complaint,
treating the same to be a gospel truth does
not even allege any entrustment of
property or any misappropriation of the
said property and, thus, no ingredients
which are required to attract the rigours of
Section 405 IPC are present in the
complaint and consequently the order
passed by the Magistrate summoning the
petitioners for being tried of any offence
under Section 406 IPC was wholly
unjustified and perverse. Similarly, the
revisional Court also erred in dismissing
the revision challenging the summoning
order without any application of mind and
without even adverting to the scope of
Section 405 IPC.

17. In view of the findings recorded
above and the law as laid down by the
Apex
Court,
extracted
above,
the
proceedings of Complaint Case No.59 of
2011 (Venkateshwar Singh, Venkat Vs.
Bid & Hammer Fine Art Auctioners (P)
Ltd. & its Chairman/M.D. and another)
under Section 406 IPC, Police Station
Aliganj, Lucknow, pending in the Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/J.M.
(J.D.) Court no.35, Lucknow are quashed
and also the order dated 8.1.2016 passed
by Additional District Judge, Court
No.10, Lucknow in Criminal Revision
No.47 of 2015 (Annexure No.1 to the writ
petition) as well as the summoning order
dated 29.4.2011, under Section 406 IPC
in the said Complaint are also quashed.

18. The writ petition is allowed in
terms of the order passed above. There
will be no order as to costs.

19. Let a copy of this order be
transmitted to the concerned trial Court
where the Complaint Case No.59 of 2011
is pending for being taken on record.
----------
(2019)11ILR A863

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION863
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA
CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 7163 of 2012

Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment
Of Gratuity Act & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anupras Singh

Counsel for the Respondenst:
A.S.G., Manish Mohan, Sharad K. Shukla,
Vinay Pandey

A. Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 2(s) -
Service law - Baroda Uttar Pradesh
Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees)
Services
Regulations,2008-Regualtion
2(o)-employee of bank-Branch Managerpayment of gratuity after retirement-the
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
formula that should have been applied
would be that of the Regulations of 2008
for calculation of gratuity as given under
Regulation 63(3)(ii), and the 'pay' should
have been taken as is defined under
Regulation
2(o)-Simultaneously,the
calculation should have also been made
on the basis of 'wages' as defined under
secion 2(s) of the Act 1972 on the basis of
formula given under Section 4(2) of the
Act-this would have resulted in a fair
picture as to what the employee was
entitled under the Regulations of 2008
and as to what the employee was entitled
under the Act of 1972. (Para 7 to25)

B. The Act of 1972 however had put
statutory ceiling limit of Rs. 3,50,000/-,
therefore, the Bank's calculation as per
Regulation of 2008 for the amount of
gratuity payable to respondent was
indeed the best deal for the employee
and the same was given in a bonafide
manner by the petitioner-Bank. (Para 26
to 28)

Writ petition allowed (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Case called out.

2. Sri Anupras Singh, learned
Counsel for the petitioner is present.

3. Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned
Counsel for the respondent no.3, has been
given repeated opportunities to file the
counter affidavit but no counter affidavit
has been filed till date by respondent
no.3. Today, when the matter is taken up,
Sri
Sharad
Kumar
Shukla,
learned
Counsel for the respondent no.3 is not
present.

4. A short counter affidavit has been
filed on 23.09.2019 on behalf of the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Lucknow by Sri Ajay Kumar Singh,
learned Advocate.

5.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner states that he does not wish to
file any rejoinder affidavit to the short
counter affidavit filed by the Regional
Labour
Commissioner
(Central),
Lucknow and the matter may be heard
and decided on merits.

6. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 28.09.2012, passed by the Appellate
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as
'the Act, 1972') in PG Appeal No. 66 of
2011 and also praying for quashing of the
order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the
Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972
in PG Case No. Lko36(15)/2009.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that
the services of its employees and officers
are governed by the Baroda Uttar Pradesh
Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees)
Services
Regulations,
2008.
Under
Regulation 2(o), 'Pay' means basic pay
drawn per month by the officer or
employee in a pay scale including
stagnation increments and any part of the
emoluments which may be specifically
classified as pay under these Regulations
and 'Salary' means the aggregate of pay
and
dearness
allowance.
The
classification of officers as given under
Regulation
3
classifies
the
Branch
Manager as officer.

8. The respondent no.3 was initially
engaged as an employee of the Bank on
01.11.1976 but at the time of his
retirement on 31.01.2009, he had been
promoted as Branch Manager i.e. as an
officer of the Bank. For the purposes of
3 All. Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs. The Appellate Authority Under Gratuiry Act & Ors.
865
gratuity, Regulation 69 of the said
Regulations, 2008 prescribes that the
amount of gratuity payable to an officer
or employee shall be either as per the
provisions of the Act, 1972 or as per the
Sub-Regulation 3 of Regulation 69,
whichever is higher. The sub-Regulation
3(ii) prescribes that amount of gratuity
payable to an officer or employee shall be
one month's pay for every completed year
of service or part thereof in excess of six
months subject to a maximum of 15
months' pay. The proviso to the said subRegulation provides that when an officer
or employee has completed more than 30
years of service, he shall be eligible by
way of gratuity, for an additional amount
at the rate of one half of a month's pay for
each completed year of service beyond 30
years. Provided further that in respect of
an officer, the gratuity is payable based
on the last pay drawn.

9. It has been submitted that under
the Act of 1972, Section 2(s), defines
'Wages' to mean all emoluments which
are earned by an employee while on duty
or on leave, which are payable to him in
cash and includes dearness allowance but
would not include any bonus, commission
and other allowances. The method of
calculation is given under Section 4 of the
Act of 1972, where under sub-Section 2
the explanation says that in case of
monthly rated employee, fifteen days
wages shall be calculated by dividing the
monthly rate of wages last drawn by him
by twenty six and multiplying the
quotient by fifteen.

10. At the time of retirement of
respondent no.3, Sri Ram Bilas Singh on
31.01.2009, the payment of gratuity had
been done and the maximum limit of
gratuity that could be paid to an employee
under the Act, 1972 was fixed as
3,50,000/- under Section 4 sub-Section 3
of the Act. When the respondent no.3
retired, his gratuity was calculated as per
the provisions of Regulation 69(2) and
also as per the provisions of Regulation
69 (3) (ii). While calculating the amount
of gratuity payable as per the Payment of
Gratuity
Act,
the
Bank
took
into
consideration the statutory maximum
ceiling limit as per Section 4(3) of the
Act, 1972 i.e. Rs.3,50,000/-.

11. In paragraph-10 of the writ
petition, the petitioner has stated the
details of their calculations regarding the
gratuity payable to the respondent no.3.
The same are being quoted hereinbelow:-

"10. That the petitioner Bank
calculated the amount of gratuity payable
to respondent no. 3 under the Payment of
Gratuity Act as well as the Regulation 69
(3) (ii)

A- Gratuity calculation as per
Service
Regulation
69(2)
(under
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972)

Gratuity = ( Basic + DA+ Spl
Allowance if any) x 15 x No. of years of
service/ 26

= (22900 + 10429) x 15 x 32 /
26

= Rs. 6,15,305/-

Maximum Gratuity Ceiling as
per Act is Rs.3,50,000/- Gratuity payable
as per (A) = Rs. 3,50,000/-

B- Gratuity calculation as per
Service Regulation 69 (3) (ii):

Gratuity - Last Basic Pay x No.
of years of service rendered (32 yrs)
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

= 22,900 x 16

= Rs. 3,66,400/-

Gratuity payable as per (B) =
Rs. 3,66,400/-

Amount of Gratuity whichever
is higher among A & B above, in terms
of
Regulation
69
of
the
service
conditions of the Bank, shall be payable.
Since Gratuity as per 'B' above is higher
than the Gratuity as per 'A' hence the
same has been paid."

It has been submitted that since
the gratuity as per calculation 'B' above as
given in paragraph-10 of the petition is
higher than the gratuity as per 'A' ,
therefore, the gratuity of Rs. 3,66,400/-
was paid as against the maximum
statutory limit of Rs.3,50,000/-.

12. It has been submitted that with
effect from 01.11.2007, the basic pay of
the respondent no. 3 was revised and the
gratuity was again calculated both under
the Act of 1972 as well as Regulation 69
(3) (ii). The calculation is given in
paragraph-12 of the writ petition, which is
quoted hereinbelow:-

"(A) Calculation of gratuity as
per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972:-

[32400 + 5638] x 15 x 32 ÷ 26
= Rs.7,02,240/-

Maximum Ceiling Limit at that
time was Rs.3,50,000/-

(B) Calculation of gratuity as
per Regulation 69 (3) (ii) read with
Regulation 2(o) of Baroda Uttar Pradesh
Gramin Bank [Officers & Employee]
Service Regulations 2008:-

[32400] x 16 month's pay =
5,18,400/-"

13. The Maximum Ceiling Limit
being Rs. 3,50,000/-, again the calculation
as per the Regulation 69(3)(ii) was
preferred
which
came
to
about
Rs.5,18,400/-. The dues of gratuity
amount of Rs.1,52,000/- was also paid to
respondent no.3. The respondent no. 3 not
being satisfied with the gratuity paid by
the Bank preferred the application under
Rule 10(i) and under Section 7(4) of the
Act,
1972
before
the
Controlling
Authority
i.e.
Regional
Labour
Commissioner (Central), Lucknow. The
said application was registered as P.G.
Case No.Lko36(15)/2009.

14. The claim of the respondent no.3
was based on his Basic Pay + Dearness
Allowance as given under the Act of 1972
and not as per the Regulations of the
Bank. He also prayed that the Maximum
Ceiling Limit of Rs.3,50,000/- be ignored
and he may be paid Rs.6,15,305/- as
gratuity and not Rs.5,18,400/- as paid by
the Bank. The difference in amount of
gratuity + interest @ 18% on the
additional gratuity amount be also paid to
him.
The
Controlling
Authority
erroneously
calculated
the
gratuity
amount on the basis of wages as defined
under Section 2(s) of the Act, 1972 i.e.
Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance and
completely
failed
to
take
into
consideration the Regulation 69 (3) (ii),
which govern the service conditions of
the respondent no.3 and provided that
amount of gratuity be calculated on the
basis of ''pay' as given under Regulation 2
3 All. Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs. The Appellate Authority Under Gratuiry Act & Ors.
867
(o) of the Regulations i.e. "Basic Pay
drawn per month only by an officer".

15. The Controlling Authority in his
letter
dated
31.05.2011
erroneously
calculated the amount by applying the
formula of the Act of 1972 and ordered
the Bank to make payment of Rs.
79,754/-. The Controlling Authority while
calculating
the
gratuity
payable
to
respondent no.3 applied the same formula
in making both the calculations i.e.
calculation as per Regulation 69 (3)(ii)
and calculation as per Section 4(2) of the
Act of 1972. Whereas he should have
applied
the
formula
given
under
Regulation 69(3) of the Regulations of
2008, i.e. Basic Pay x 16, (after 32 years
of service rendered in the Bank by
respondent no.3). The Basic Pay of
respondent no.3 was however correctly
taken
as
Rs.32,400/-,
although
the
respondent no. 3 has prayed that the same
be taken as Rs.32,400 + Rs.5,6,38 i.e. by
adding Dearness Allowance also.

As a result of the wrong calculation,
the Controlling Authority came to the
conclusion that Rs. 5,95,154/- was
payable to the respondent no.3 and the
Bank had only paid Rs.5,18,400/-. The
difference in amount i.e. the additional
gratuity was directed to be paid as
Rs.79,754/-. The interest on delayed
payment however was not given.

16. The respondent no.3 filed an
appeal against the order of Controlling
Authority but beyond the period of
limitation as given under Section 7 and
the said appeal was rejected by the
Appellate Authority by an order dated
11.09.2010. A copy of the order dated
11.09.2010 as been annexed as annexure7 to the writ petition.

17. The Bank also preferred an
appeal. The said appeal was filed within
time and it was considered on its merit
and the order impugned filed as annexure1 to the writ petition has been passed.

18. In the said impugned order, the
Appellate
Authority
calculated
the
amount of gratuity payable to respondent
no.3 on the basis of wages i.e. Basic Pay
+ Dearness Allowance as defined under
the Act of 1972. It completely failed to
take into consideration the Regulation 69
(3) (ii). The statutory Ceiling Limit of
Rs.3,50,000/- as given under the Act of
1972, was also ignored by the Appellate
Authority. The calculation as done by the
Appellate Authority is evident from page25 of the paperbook i.e. operative portion
of the impugned order dated 28.09.2012.
The relevant extract of the order dated
28.09.2012 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Further, considering the facts
and documents placed on record and the
arguments of the parties to the case, I
hereby
modify
the
order
of
the
Controlling Authority dated 31.05.2011
and allow submission of the respondent
employee accordingly he has become
entitled for payment of gratuity on the
basis of calculation of Pay+DA i.e.
Rs.38038 x 15 x 32 =

2

702240.00 say Rs.702240 -
518400 (already paid) = Rs.183840/-
balance gratuity payable plus 10%
interest on entire amount of gratuity
payable to the employee from the date on
which the gratuity become due till actual
date of payment."

19. The interest @ 10% as given in
the Act was directed to be paid on the
additional amount so calculated from the
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
date the gratuity become payable, till the
date of actual payment, and in case of
delay in payment by the Bank within 30
days to the employee, the employee was
entitled for 18% compound interest
therefor.

20. When the writ petition was filed
and taken up at the admission stage on
19.12.21012, this Court had passed an
order staying the order of the Appellate
Authority to the extent of modification
enhancing the amount granted by the
Controlling Authority. However, this
Court had made clear that the amount
granted by the Controlling Authority shall
be payable to the respondent no.3, which
had already been deposited before the
Controlling Authority and the same may
be released to respondent no.3 on his
application subject to the result of this
writ petition.

21. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the Bank is not
disputing any payment made on the basis
of the impugned order of the Controlling
Authority at this stage because it would
lead to hardship to respondent no.3, but at
the same time the Bank does not wish that
the wrong calculation adopted by the
Controlling Authority should become a
binding precedent and should be utilized
to cause loss to the Bank in the future by
the other employees.

22. This Court has considered the
submissions made by learned Counsel for
the petitioner and has also gone through
the Regulations of 2008. The Regulations
of 2008 classify Branch Manager as
officer of the Bank and the amount of
gratuity payable to the officer has been
given under Regulation 69 (3)(ii), which
is to the effect that one month's pay for
every completed year of service, subject
to a maximum of 15 months' pay, was to
be given to the officer but where the
officer or employee has completed 30
years of service, he was eligible for
gratuity of an additional amount at the
rate of one half of a month's pay for each
completed year of service beyond 30
years. Since the respondent no.3 rendered
32 years of service, 16 months' pay was to
be given to respondent no.3 as gratuity,
on the basis of last pay drawn by such
officer. The last pay drawn by the officer
at the time of his retirement was
Rs.22,900/-, which was later on revised
and became Rs.32,400/-. Such an amount
came to Rs.5,18,000/- and the same was
paid. On the other hand, the calculation
was also done as per the Act of 1972 by
the Bank to find out whether the
respondent no.3 was entitled to a better
deal.

The respondent no.3 was indeed
entitled to the better deal as per the Act of
1972 on the method of calculation
prescribed under sub-Section 2 of Section
4, but due to statutory ceiling limit of
Rs.3,50,000/- on the gratuity payable to
an employee under the Act of 1972, the
best deal for such an employee would
again
be
the
calculation
as
per
Regulations 69 (3)(ii) of the Bank's
Regulation. Therefore, the best deal was
given to the respondent no.3 by the Bank.

23. The Controlling Authority on
the other hand while noticing the ceiling
limit of Rs.3,50,000/- as given under the
Act of 1972 before its amendment, made
the calculations wrongly, on the basis of
formula applied under the Act of 1972 i.e.
''the wages' were multiplied by fifteen
into the years of service i.e. 32 years and
then dividing the same by 26. As a result
of this wrong calculation, the Controlling
3 All. Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs. The Appellate Authority Under Gratuiry Act & Ors.
869
Authority found that Rs. 79,754/- had
been paid less by the Bank and directed
for such payment by its order dated
31.05.2011.

24. When the appeal was being
considered by the Appellate Authority,
the formula as per the Act of 1972 was
again applied and also the ''wages' were
taken into account and not the ''pay' as
given
under
Regulations,
2008
i.e.
inclusive of Basic Pay + Dearness
Allowance.

25. The formula that should have
been applied would be that of the
Regulations of 2008 for calculation of
gratuity as given under Regulation
63(3)(ii), and the ''pay' should have been
taken as is defined under Regulation 2(o).
Simultaneously, the calculation should
have also been made on the basis of
''wages' as defined under Section 2(s) of
the Act of 1972 on the basis of formula
given under Section 4(2) of the Act. This
would have resulted in a fair picture as to
what the employee was entitled under the
Regulations of 2008 and as to what the
employee was entitled under the Act of
1972.

26. The Act of 1972 however had
put statutory ceiling limit of Rs.3,50,000/-
, therefore, the Bank's calculation as per
Regulation of 2008 for the amount of
gratuity payable to respondent no. 3 was
indeed the best deal for the employee and
the same was given in a bonafide manner
by the petitioner - Bank.

27. This Court finds that the due to
some confusion, the formula given under
the Act of 1972 and the definition of
''wages' as given under the Act of 1972
was also applied in making calculation of
gratuity for respondent no.3 by the
Controlling
Authority
and
by
the
Appellate Authority.

28. Also, in case the Controlling
Authority and the Appellate Authority
was applying the formula as given under
the Act of 1972, they should have taken
into consideration also the ceiling limit of
Rs.3,50,000/- under the Act. The same
was not taken into account. Such
discretion was not provided under the Act
to the Controlling Authority or the
Appellate Authority, to ignore altogether
the statutory ceiling limit.

29. In view of the above, the
impugned orders are set aside. The writ
petition is allowed.

30. However, because of the
compliance of the order passed by the
Controlling Authority certain amount had
been deposited before the Appellate
Authority by the Bank, which may have
been released in favour of respondent
no.3 during the pendency of the petition.
This Court is not directing the recovery of
the same from the employee concerned.
However, the logic applied by the
Controlling
Authority
and Appellate
Authority having been found to be
skewed, it is being disapproved, and it
shall not be treated as binding precedent
for calculating the amount of gratuity to
be paid to Bank employees retiring from
Baroda U.P. Gramin Bank.

31. Writ Petitions No. 7164 (M/S)
of 2012 and No. 7165 (M/S) of 2012 are
de-linked from the present petition, which
shall be listed in the next week for orders
to be passed thereon.
----------
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2019)11ILR A870

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Misc. Single No. 20659 of 2019 connected with
other cases

M.D./Chairman-Administrative-Committee/
Occupier Lko. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Shri Krishna Bihari Yadav & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar, Sri Arvind Kumar
Pandey, Sri Sridhar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.N. Tripathi, Sri M.K. Sahu

A. - Service law -Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 - Section 14 - applicability of
Gratuity act upon the employees of
Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation
Ltd. (PCDF) - the provision of section 14
gives an over-riding effect over any
other inconsistence provision and any
other documents or contract, be it the
V.R.S. signed by the parties. (Para 16 to
31)

Writ petition dismissed (E-6)

List of Cases Cited: -

1. Ghaziyabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Vs.
Additional Labour Commissioner and Ors
(2007) 11 SCC 756

2. Brahamvartha Commercial Co-operative
Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal III, U.P. Kanpur (2012) 134 FLR 574

3. Sikta Mahoogarh Sadhan Sahkari Samiti
Ltd. Vs. Prescribed Authority(Payment of
Wages Act) and Ors (2015) 144 FLR 23
4. M/S Gangol Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh
Ltd. Through G.M. Vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court II Meerut and Anr.

5. Sugvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

6. Shobhai Ram and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and
Ors. (2014) 142 FLR 457

7. P. Rajan Sandhi Vs. Union of India (2010)
10 SCC 338

8. Dr. Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Cadere Authority
U.P. Coop. Dairy Federation and Milk Union

9. Y. K. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and
Ors (2013) 136 FLR 1087

10. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dharam
Prakash Sharma (1999) 81 FLR 867

11.
State
of
Punjab
Vs.
The
Labour
Court,Jullundur and Ors(1979) 39 FLR 353

12. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Vs.
Mujib Ullah Khan and Anr. (2019) 161 FLR 503
(S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. This bunch of writ petitions is
filed
by
petitioner,
Pradeshik
Cooperative
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