CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR. versus RAJESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 07-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 84
84
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR FERTILIZER
CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR.
v.
RAJESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.2260 of 2022)
APRIL 7, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(s) – Whether ad hoc
payment made by Management to the workers pursuant to interim
orders passed by Supreme Court in a previous round of litigation
could form part of “wages” within the meaning of the expression u/
s.2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, for the purpose of calculating
gratuity, especially in the light of the order passed by Supreme Court
in the case of Shri Kashi Prasad Tripathi – Held: The order passed in
the case of Shri Kashi Prasad Tripathi does not deal with this question
– s.2(s) of the Act defines wages – Irrespective of whether what was
earned has been paid or remained payable, the same is included in
the definition, provided it is in accordance with the terms and
conditions of his employment – In the instant case, the employees
initiated the first round of litigation (writ petitions) before various
High Courts, for grant of the benefit of revision of pay scales, on
ground that the employees of other PSUs were granted revision on
par with the Government servants – Thus, what was claimed in the
first round of litigation was not what was payable in accordance
with the terms and conditions of employment – Therefore, the Supreme
Court (to which the writ petitions got transferred) was clear in its
interim order as to how the ad hoc payment ordered thereunder
should be treated – Even in the final order (vide which the writ
petitions were eventually dismissed), the Supreme Court made it clear
that what was paid was only ad hoc – In a recent Supreme Court
decision, it was clarified that wages mean and include basic wages
and Dearness Allowance and nothing else – Ad hoc payment made
pursuant to the interim orders by Supreme Court will not form part
of the wages – Labour Laws.
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.2(s) – Definition of “wages”
– Held: The definition of the expression is in 3 parts, the first part
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
85
indicating the meaning of the expression, the second part indicating
what is included therein and the third part indicating what is not
included therein – Labour Laws.
Judgment /Order – Interim order – Party who secured it, failed
in the final stage – Effect – Held: A party who is in enjoyment of an
interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order
when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him.
Practice and Procedure – Appeals before Supreme Court, of
State or instrumentalities of State against individual litigants –
Refusal of Supreme Court to go into question of law in such cases –
Held: Cannot be treated as tantamounting to answering the question
of law in a particular manner – Whenever the State or
instrumentalities of State come up with appeals challenging small
benefits granted to individual litigants, the Supreme Court applies
the test of proportionality to see whether the quantum of benefits
granted to the individual concerned, justifies the examination of
the question of law, at the cost of that little man from a far off place
– Doctrines/Principles – Test of proportionality.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The order passed by this Court on 05.05.2015
in C.A.No.4258 of 2015 in the case of Shri Kashi Prasad Tripathi
does not deal with this question. The said order has gone on the
basis that the computation of the quantum of gratuity is exclusively
within the domain of the authorities under the statute and that
the High Court is not competent to interfere with the same.
Therefore, the order passed in the case of Kashi Prasad Tripathi
cannot be taken to have laid down any law to the effect that the
ad hoc payment will form part of wages. The respondents,
therefore, cannot really take advantage of the order passed in
the case of Kashi Prasad Tripathi, merely on the ground that the
very same question of law was raised by the Management in the
civil appeal and thereafter in the petition for review and curative
petition. At times, this Court refuses to go into the questions of
law, when a single individual armed with an order in his favour
from the High Court is pitted against the State. Whenever the
State or instrumentalities of State come up with appeals challenging
small benefits granted to individual litigants, this Court appl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.