LexANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. HYDERABAD versus P. VENKATESWARA RAO ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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-Govern- me11!, 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. Follow- ing 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 Establish- ment 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 pay- ments 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 provi- sions of Rule 8.01 and 8.02 of the Gratu'ty rules. Illegal payments of gra·u- ity 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.