E.L.D. PARRY (I) LTD versus G. OMKAR MURTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 27-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-{ 
E.l.D. PARRY (I) LTD. 
A 
v. 
G. OMKAR MURTHY AND ORS. 
MARCH 27, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
.. 
Labour Laws : 
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-Section 2( e )-Andhra Pradesh Shops 
and Establishments Act, 1966-Sec~ion 40( 3 )-Gratuity-Claim of-Under the c 
State Act-Permissibility of-Central Act not applicable to the claimants-
State Act more beneficial than the Central Act-Held, the claim is permitted. 
Respondents left service under voluntary retirement scheme, obtain-
ing benefits under Payment of Gratuity Act (Central Act). At the time of 
the retirement their wages was more than Rs. 1600. Thereafter, they filed 
D 
application under Section 44 of Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establish-
ments Act (State Act), claiming difference of gratuity between the Central 
Act and the State Act. 
Trial Court granted relief to the respondents. Appeal filed by the 
appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Revision petition 
E 
before High Court was also dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the claims are 
unsustainable because the Central Act prevails over the State Act by virtue 
of Article 254 of the Constitution and Section 40(3) is invalid. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. At the relevant time when the resp1mdents voluntarily 
... 
retired from service the definition of employee under Section 2(e) of the 
Central Act read as not to include employee whose wages exceeded Rs. 
G 
1000 per mensem while the respondents-employees were all getting wages 
c 
more than Rs. 1600 per mensem and, therefore, the Central Act could not 
> 
be applied. If that is so, it is permissible for the respondents to have made 
an application for payment of gratuity under Section 40(3) of the State 
Act. Further the Scheme of the Central Act would indicate that it would 
not be applicable in cases where the State Act is more beneficial than the 
H 
807 
A 
B 
808 
SUPREME CvURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
Central Act. In this case, the finding is that the State Act is more beneficial 
than the Central Act. Therefore, the contentions sought to be advanced on 
behalf the appellant as to repugnancy or otherwise of the State Act would 
not arise at all. If both the enactments can co-exist and can operate where 
one Act or the other is not available then there is no difficulty in making 
the State Act applicable on the fact situation available as bas been done in 
the present case. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the appel· 
Ian! are unsustainable. [809-E·G] 
State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Ju/lunder & Ors., (1980) 1 SCR 953 
and M.S.R. Murthys Arya Sumayajula Yagneswara Chenulu, (1985) LAB I.C. 
C 
189, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5956-5958 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.98 of the Andhra Pradesh 
D 
High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 3941, 4047 and 4563 of 1997. 
E 
Narayan B. Shetye, V. Balaji and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellant. 
Ramesh Chandra Mishra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. In these cases the respondents-employees 
were in the employment of the appellant between the years 1958 and 1984. 
On October I, 1984 voluntary retirement scheme was introduced and the 
respondents availed of that benefit and left the services after obtaining the 
F 
terminal benefits as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act']. Thereafter petitions were filed 
under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 
[hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act'] claiming the difference between 
the gratuity received by them and the gratuity payable under Section 40 of 
G 
H 
the State Act. Before the Authority under the State Act, three objections were 
raised that (i) there has been inordinate delay in preferring the claim; (ii) for 
payment of gratuity the Central Act prevails over the State Act; and (iii) the 
question whether the gratuity payable under the Central Act is more favour-
able than the State Act could not be examined by the trial court concerned. 
The trial court, however, gave relief to the workmen. The appellate authority 
dismissed all the three appeals. Revision petitions filed before the High Court 
., 
., 
' 
E.I.D. PARRY (I) LID. v. G. OMKAR MURTHY [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
809 
also stood dismissed. Hence these appeals by special leave. 
Four contentions are put forth before us, namely, that 

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