# 24.8 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. HYDERABAD v. P. VENKATESW ARA RAO ETC

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 248
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-08-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1153 of 1972
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/24-8-andhra-pradesh-state-road-transport-corp-hyderabad-v-p-venkatesw-ara-rao-6910
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
24.8
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.
HYDERABAD
v.
P. VENKATESW ARA RAO ETC.
August 19, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, HA
Gratuity, entitlement tO-Whether a fdrmer employee of the Nizam's State
Railway can claim grQtuity as of right i~ addition to Provident Fu11d-Governme11!, of Hyderabad Railway EstCJblishment Code, 19'49, Rule 8.01, 8.02, 8.05,
\.
8, t .. , 8.13, 8.15, 8.16, 8.17 adn 8.19 read with para 17 Chapter Vfl..--lmer
practice of.
·
.Code <>! Civil
Procedure, Act V of 1908--Section
11-Princip/e of res
jud1cata,-Applicabi1ity when gratuity was awarded in a previous proceedings
.under the Paymen~ of Wage Act i1~ the teeth of the clear provision of Rufe
8.01-Scape of Rule 8.01.
Provid,.nt Fund-l/lef?a/ payment of gratuity in the past will not affect legal
claims to Provident Fund.
'
·
In APSRTC v. Rammohan Rao (Civil revision petition No.
1598/1968,
dated April 25, 1%9), the' High Court of Andhra: Pradesh held: (i) that wages
under s. 2(iv) (d) of the Payment of Wa~s Act included gratuily and (ii)
that Rule 8.01 of the Hyderabad Government Railway Establishment Code,
1949, did not stahd alone and read with Rule 8.15 it meant that an employee!
who hmi received the Provideni Fund was not disentitled to gratuity. Following the said decision, the labour court in all the appeals allowed the claims
of the respondents to gratuity in addition to Provident Fund vide
its
order
dated August 25, 1970.
Dis:mis.sing the appeals by special leave the Court,
HEID : (i) Rule 8.15 of the Hyderabad Government Railway Establishment Oxle, 1949', cannot be read in the same manner as tlie Andhra Pradesh
High Court had done it in the earlier case.
Rule 8.15 only explains
how
Rule 8.05 wrui to> be applied in oertain cases.
Rule 8.05 Jays down that the
period for which! gratuity on retiremeht or contribution to the Provident Fund
has been received will count towards the qualifications in Rule 8.05 and further
clarifies that the per•od will not, however, affect ilie calculation of the amount
of gratuity under Rule 8.19. The obvious intention of Rule 8.15 was that
the amount already received either as gratuity or contribution to the PrOVideht
Fund will not be paid again to the employee. The periods for which payments had already been made, which may happen in certain cases,
would
nevertheless count towards the qualifyihg period prescribed by Rule 8.05. [242
F-Hl
(2) When gratuity was awarded in a previous proceeding as a part of
wages in the teeth of the clear provision of Rules 8.01 imposing a condition
precedent which v1as not satisfied to eligibility for it, the contention ~hat such
a patently illegal view could or should be h_eld to be binding on the parties ih
a subsequent claim for gratuity on the same footing is unacceptable. The
mcst the court can say is that the previous recognition of a claim to gratuity.
practically in excess of jurisdiction to do so,
deba~s the l~bour court from
going into the question wheth~r the respohdent was. ~1ghtly paid that amount as
gratuity in the past. In the mGtant case, the prov1s10ns of s. 11 of the C.P.C.
have no application. [253 D.G]
(3) It is true that the whole idea of the Provident Fund to
which
the
employer also contributes, seems to be different from a gratuity to which "good.
continuous, efficient and faithful" service may entitle an employee yet he cannot
claim the benefit of both the guaranteed or other Provident Fund to which the
"'
A. P. ROAD TRANSPORT V. P. VENKATESWARA RAO (Beg, J.) 249
employer contributes as well as to gratuity· as of right in the face of the provisions of Rule 8.01 and 8.02 of the Gratu'ty rules.
Illegal payments of gra·uity in the r.ast will not affect legal claims to Provident Fund. [253 H. 254, A]
Andhra l'radesh State Road Transport Corporation v. M. Rammohan Rao
(Civil) Revision Petition No. 1598/1968 decided on April 25, 1969), (AP.),
over-ruled.
·
A

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
24.8
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.
HYDERABAD
v.
P. VENKATESW ARA RAO ETC.
August 19, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, HA
Gratuity, entitlement tO-Whether a fdrmer employee of the Nizam's State
Railway can claim grQtuity as of right i~ addition to Provident Fu11d-Governme11!, of Hyderabad Railway EstCJblishment Code, 19'49, Rule 8.01, 8.02, 8.05,
\.
8, t .. , 8.13, 8.15, 8.16, 8.17 adn 8.19 read with para 17 Chapter Vfl..--lmer
practice of.
·
.Code <>! Civil
Procedure, Act V of 1908--Section
11-Princip/e of res
jud1cata,-Applicabi1ity when gratuity was awarded in a previous proceedings
.under the Paymen~ of Wage Act i1~ the teeth of the clear provision of Rufe
8.01-Scape of Rule 8.01.
Provid,.nt Fund-l/lef?a/ payment of gratuity in the past will not affect legal
claims to Provident Fund.
'
·
In APSRTC v. Rammohan Rao (Civil revision petition No.
1598/1968,
dated April 25, 1%9), the' High Court of Andhra: Pradesh held: (i) that wages
under s. 2(iv) (d) of the Payment of Wa~s Act included gratuily and (ii)
that Rule 8.01 of the Hyderabad Government Railway Establishment Code,
1949, did not stahd alone and read with Rule 8.15 it meant that an employee!
who hmi received the Provideni Fund was not disentitled to gratuity. Following the said decision, the labour court in all the appeals allowed the claims
of the respondents to gratuity in addition to Provident Fund vide
its
order
dated August 25, 1970.
Dis:mis.sing the appeals by special leave the Court,
HEID : (i) Rule 8.15 of the Hyderabad Government Railway Establishment Oxle, 1949', cannot be read in the same manner as tlie Andhra Pradesh
High Court had done it in the earlier case.
Rule 8.15 only explains
how
Rule 8.05 wrui to> be applied in oertain cases.
Rule 8.05 Jays down that the
period for which! gratuity on retiremeht or contribution to the Provident Fund
has been received will count towards the qualifications in Rule 8.05 and further
clarifies that the per•od will not, however, affect ilie calculation of the amount
of gratuity under Rule 8.19. The obvious intention of Rule 8.15 was that
the amount already received either as gratuity or contribution to the PrOVideht
Fund will not be paid again to the employee. The periods for which payments had already been made, which may happen in certain cases,
would
nevertheless count towards the qualifyihg period prescribed by Rule 8.05. [242
F-Hl
(2) When gratuity was awarded in a previous proceeding as a part of
wages in the teeth of the clear provision of Rules 8.01 imposing a condition
precedent which v1as not satisfied to eligibility for it, the contention ~hat such
a patently illegal view could or should be h_eld to be binding on the parties ih
a subsequent claim for gratuity on the same footing is unacceptable. The
mcst the court can say is that the previous recognition of a claim to gratuity.
practically in excess of jurisdiction to do so,
deba~s the l~bour court from
going into the question wheth~r the respohdent was. ~1ghtly paid that amount as
gratuity in the past. In the mGtant case, the prov1s10ns of s. 11 of the C.P.C.
have no application. [253 D.G]
(3) It is true that the whole idea of the Provident Fund to
which
the
employer also contributes, seems to be different from a gratuity to which "good.
continuous, efficient and faithful" service may entitle an employee yet he cannot
claim the benefit of both the guaranteed or other Provident Fund to which the
"'
A. P. ROAD TRANSPORT V. P. VENKATESWARA RAO (Beg, J.) 249
employer contributes as well as to gratuity· as of right in the face of the provisions of Rule 8.01 and 8.02 of the Gratu'ty rules.
Illegal payments of gra·uity in the r.ast will not affect legal claims to Provident Fund. [253 H. 254, A]
Andhra l'radesh State Road Transport Corporation v. M. Rammohan Rao
(Civil) Revision Petition No. 1598/1968 decided on April 25, 1969), (AP.),
over-ruled.
·
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 36 to 54 of
B
"
1971.
. .,,
Appeals by special leave from thei judgment and order dated
25-8-1970 of the Labour Court, Hyderabad in CivH Misc. Petitions
Nos. 133 to 147 and 165 to 168 of 1970.
I
I
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1153 of 1972.
C
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
20-10-71 of the Labour Court, Hyderabad i•a Misc. Petition No. 64/71.
AND
.
Civil Appeal No. 312 of 1973.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
11-2-1972 of the Labour Court, Hyderabad in Misc.
Petition No.
239/70.
AND
Civil Appeals Nos. 325 to 339 of 1973 .
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 7th,
D
9th, 11th and 15th February, 1972 of the Labour Court Hyderabad in
E
Misc. Petitions Nos. 231-238/70, and 240-246/70.
L. N. Sinha, Sol. General of India and B. Parthasarthy,
fbr the
appellants.
G. Narayana Rao and K. S. Ramanuja.charyulu,
for the respondents.
The Judginent of the court was delivered by
BEG, J. A number of appeals filed by the Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation are before us by grant of special leave
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, against orders of a
Labour Court passed under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputt<S
Act, 1947. The facts of the first of these appeals may be stated to
illustrate the ki!ad of circumstances in which a common question of law
involved in these appeals arises.
The respondent P. Venkateswara Rao, who was employed on 6th
October, 1933, retired on 10th February, 1958, after putting in more
than 34 years of service. As he was a former employee of the Nizam's
State Railway, his service conditions were governed by the provisions
of the Government of Hyderabad, Railway Department ES'tablishment
Code of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). He claimed
that he was entitled to receive a gratuity at a half month'~ salary for
18-1003 SCil76
G
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 1 S.C.R.
•
A
oach year of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 15 months'
salary as laid down in Rule 8.01 of the Code, which says. :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"8.01. Condition of eligibility.-Gratuity is granted at
the discretion of Government in the Railway Department as
a reward for good, efficient, continuous, and faithful service
to a perma:aent railway servant if he is not a subscriber to the
Provident Fund or to the Guaranteed Provident Fund, on his
quitting the service, or, in the event of his de'ilth before receipt
of gratuity to his widow or widows
and/ or dependent
children. For purposes of this rule a monthly paid railway
servant borne on the temporary establishment whose pay is
charged to open line capital and revenue works on which he
is employed shall be deemed to be a permanent railway servant only after he had rendered 4 years' continuous service,
railway servants belonging to the category of workshop staff,
employed otherwise than in a supervisory capacity, shall also
be considered as permanent railway servants only after they
have rendered 4 years' oontinuous service".
The other rules which seemed to h•ave a bearing on the question before us are as follows :
"8.02. A gratuity cannot be claimed as of right.
8.04. No gratuity shall be granted to a railway servant who
has been removed from service by reason of any miscCJ1,1duct on his part, save with the express sanction of
the authority competent to sanction the gratuity.
8.05. Qualifying service.-Except where otherwise provided
for in these rules, service must be continuous and
must also, in the opinion of the General Manager, be
"good", "efficient" and "faithful" service to qualify
for the gratuity. A gratuity may be granted on the
fulfilmetnt of the following conditions :-
(i) Completion of thirty years' service; or
(ii) Attainment of the age of fifty-five years, provided not less than fifteen years' service has been
completed; or
(iii) Retirement or resignation after fifteen years'
service, on grounds admitted by the authority
competeii1t to sanction the gratuity as good and
sufficient from the point of view of the Administration; or
(iv) Retirement with less tlran fifteen years' service,
due to
(a) permanent physical or mental 'incapacity, or
(b) abolition of appointment if other suitable
employment cannot be found for the railway
servant.
..
r
•
,
'
I
....
•,
•
A. P. ROAD TRANSPORT V. P. VENKATESWARA RAO (Beg, J.)
25 l
8.12. The maximum period of service qualifying for
gratuity is thirty years.
8.13. A railway servant who is retired in service after he has
attained the age of fifty-five years may be permitted
to count the whole of his service, subject to the limit
of thirty years, as qualifying for, gratuity.
8.15. Service for which a railway servant has already received a retiring graturty or special contribution to
the provident fund or to the guaranteed providoot
fund counts as qualifying service for the purpose 0f
rule 8.05 but it shall be excluded in calculating the
amount of gratuity admissible under rule ·8.19.
8.16. When a railway servant is injured in the performanct<
of his duty and is obliged to leave the service, he may
be given the groatuity he had earned under these rules
in addition to any compensation gratuity awarded to
him on account of his injury.
8.17. Breaks in service.-
(i) Ordinarily, a break in llie service of a railway
servant entails forfeiture of his past service, but, in
deserving cases, this rule may be relaxed under orders
of the Goverinment in the Railway Department, or in
cases of breaks not exceeding fifteen days in respect
of railway servants other than Class I or Class II
under the orders of the General Manager, the period
of break whether in permanent or temporary service
or both being treated as dies non.
(ii) A railway servant who has been discharged from
the service may, subject to the other coinditions of
these rules, on re-employment on the Railway,
be
permitted to add the period of his former qualifying
service to his future service for the purpose of determining the gratuity admissible to him.
8.19. Amount of gratuity.-The amount of gratuity oadll,lissible shall be as follows :
(i) In cases of less than fifteen years' qualifying
service falling under rule 8.05{iv) above, a gratuity
limited ordinariJy to half a month's pay, and, in special
cases, where circumstances warrant, to one month's
pay, for each year of qualifying service, subject to a
maximum of six months' pay in all.
{ii) In all other cases falling under the rules in this
chapter half a month's pay for each year of qualifying
service, subject to a moaximum of fifteen months'
pay".
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
The respondent claimed Rs. 3962.50 as gratuity. The defence of
the appellant was, inter-alia, that a sum of Rs. 3962/- had already
been paid to the respondeat on 13th March, 1968, as a special contribution to Provident Fund. It was urged that no employee is entitled
to any grant at all if he is a subscriber to Provident Fund. It is pointed
out that Rule 8.01 set out above made a claim of payment of gratuity
admissible in those cases where the employee was not a subscriber to
the Provident Fund. On the face of it, this cOiatention, which has been
repeated before us, seems to be sound and unanswerable.
The Labour Court had, however, over-ruled the main defence of
the appellant on the strength of a pre~ious proceeding under section
15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, in which the respondent had
claimed a payment out of his gratuity, to the extent of 2,000/-, on the
ground that the gratuity claimable fell within the definition of "wages"
under the Payment of Wages Act. It had been held that he was
entitled to such payment although he was a subscriber to a Provident
fund.
In that case, the respondent had applied only for deducting
RJS. 1256.79 due from him to the Co-operative Credit Society of the
appellant Corporation from the gratuity which would have become
payable to him on retirement. He was declared entitled to Rs. 1630/-
only. The two issues framed in that case were as follows :
1. Whether gratuity is wages within the meaning of payment of Wages Act?
2. Whether the Corporation had the discretion to refuse
to pay the gratuity to the respondent and whether it
cannot be questioned ?
The case had gone up to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code. The High Court,
while rejecting the objection advanced on behalf of the
appellant
Corporation in ·a case arising out of the proceeding under the Payment
of Wages' Act, had observed that Rule 8.15 indicated that Rule 8.01
did not stand in the way of awarding gratuity to a person who is also
entitled to the Provident Fund.
We are unable to read Rule 8.15 in the same way as the High
Court had done it in the earlier case. We think that Rule 8.15 only
explains how Rule 8.05 was to be applied in certain cases. It lays
down that the period for which gratuity of retirement or contribution
to the Provident Fund had been received will count towards the qualifications laid down in Rule 8.05. It then clarifies that this period
will not, howev,er, affect the calculation of the amount of gratuity
under Rule 8.19.
The obvious intention of Rule 8.15 was that the
amount already received either as gratuity or contribution to the
Provident Fund will not be paid again to the employee. The period
for which payments had already been made, which may happen in
certain cases, such as those of broken service or of anticipatory
payments, like the one to satisfy debt of the respondent P. Venkateswara Rao, to the Cooperative Society, would, nevertheless, count
towards the qualifying period prescribed by Rule 8.05.
I
A. P. ROAD TRANSPORT V. P. VENKATESWARA RAO (Beg, J.) 253
On the strength of the judgment of the High Court, in the pre- A
vious proceeding, which was the basis of the decision of the Labour
Court, Learned Counsel for the respondent had put forward a preliminary objection that the matter cannot be reagitated.
It is clear
that the provisions of Section 11 C.P.C. have no application to such
a case.
The nature of the proceedings and of authorities before
which the claims were made were different. It is, however,
urged
that the principles of res judicata should bar raising the same ques- B
tion once again in a subsequent proceeding. It is true that the High
Court had made observiations which had a
clear bearing on the
question to be decided subsequently, but, it will be noticed that the
question now before us was not directly the subject matter of
th~
issues framed in the previous proceeding which have been set out
above. Nevertheless, an objection was taken on behalf of the appellant that a basic condition for the eligibility of a claim for gratuity C
had not been satisfied inasmuch as the respondent was a subscriber
to a Provident Fund. This objection had been over-ruled. It was
held that the gratuity could be claimed as of right.
We do not know
what direction was exactly given in that case. The finding, however,
that the petitioner was entitled to a 'payment of gratuity, as of right,
to the extent of Rs. 1630/-, appears to have been given as a result D
of the decision that he ~as entitled to the payment of this much
gratuity and no more for the purposes of the claim made in the proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act.
It seems to us that, when gratuity was awarded in a previous proceeding, as a part of Wages, in 'the teeth of the clear provision of
Rule 8.01 imposing a condition precedent, which was not satisfied, E
to eligibility for it, it is difficult to hold that 1such a patently illegal
view could or should be held to be binding on the parties in a subsequent claim for gratuity on the same footing, before the Labour
Court. We find that, even if we were to hold, as we think we must,
as the matter was not taken further, that the declaration of entitlement to Rs. 1630/- in the previous proceeding should be held to be
binding between parties, we cannot apply the same reasoning to the F
subsequent claim made before the Labour Court which is now before
us.
The Labour Court had not even deducted the amount already
awarded earlier from the amount awarded by its judgment now
before us.
The most we can say is that the previous recognition of
a claim to gratuity, practically in excess of jurisdiction to do so,
debars the Labour Court from going into the question whether the
respondent was rightly paid that amount as gratuity in the past. We G
have already set out the rule which disentitles him from being eligible
for the award of gratuity when he contributes to a provident fund also.
We have also interpreted the rule which was misunderstood earlier
by the High Court.
We need not here set out the relewint provident fund rules contained in Chapter 7 of the Code. It is true that the whole idea of H
the Provident Fund, to which the employer also contributes, seems to
be different from a gratuity to which "good, continuous, efficient and
faithful servant" may entitle an employee, yet, we are unable to hold
A
8
c
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
that the employee is able to claim the benefit of ,both a guaranteed or
other Provident_ Fund, to which the employer contributes, as
well
as to gratuity, as of right, in the face of the provisions of Rule 8.01
and 8.02 of the gratuity rules set out above.
Although we have held that a claim ito gratuity, as of right, cannot be put forward, under the Code, by an employee who gets the
benefit of a Provident Fund also, yet illegal payments of gratuity in
the past will not affect legal claims to Provident Fund.
In
Civil
Appeal No. 1153 of 1972, the amount awarded to an employee was
in respect of payment due towards the guaranteed Provident Fund
which had nothing to do with a claim for gratuity. This claim was,
therefore. rightly allowed.
Civlil Appeals No. 36 to 54 of 1971 and Civil Appeals Nos. 325
to 339 of 1973 involve only claims to gratuity by persons who are
entitled to Provident Fund.
These claims, according to the view
taken by us, are not admissible under the law.
Simila.I'. is the position in Civil Appeal No. 312 of 1973.
For the reasons given above, we allow Civil Appeals Nos. 36 to
D
54 of 1971, and Civil Appeal No. 312 of 1973, and CiWl Appeals
Nos. 325 to 339 of 1973, and dismiss the claims under Section 33C
(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, of the respondents in these
appeals.
We, however, dismiss the Civil Appeal No. 1153 of 1972.
The parties will bear their own costs.
S.R.
C.As. 36-54/71, 312/73
and 329-339/73 allowed.
C.A. No. 1153/72 dismissed.