LexKATHEEJA BAI versus THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B • D • B p G H. 798 KATHEEJA BAI v. THE SUPERIN"iENDJNG ENGINEER & ORS. MayJO, 1984 [0. CHINNAPPA l!-EDDY, A.P. SEN AND • E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Tamil Nadu.-Electrictjr Board Co~tribulorj ProvidelJI Fund RegulatiOn1 ·frcimed by Tarilil Nadu Electricity Board .under Electricity Supply Act, 1948- · Regulation 37-Whether_SP,t;Cial Contribiltion to be made by ElectriCity BQard. to the Contributory Provident Fund of the einpJOyees is _·Same as Gr.atuity tinder Pay- ment' of G;atufty Act, 1.912-W.heth~i PaylTll!nt· of Gratuity under Payment of _Gratuity· A.ct debars paym.e"nt of SpeCial ConttibJ,(lion. to be made under Regula· ~ion 31. Public Interest L'it1'gation-Letfer-to 1udge- treate·d wrii petition~ Regaiation 37 of the. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Contributory Provident Fund Regulations framed by the Tamil Natlu Electricity Board under· the Electri- city-Supply Act, 1948 provides that the Electricity Board shall credit.to a mem- ber's.-provident fund acCount a special contribution calC\1lated in the specified ··rnanrier, in addition to. the contribution credited under ·Regut3.ti0n. ll, if the Board is satisfied that the service of the member has been good effici~nt and-_ faith .. ful and th¢_ member ha~ not b~eCn diSJ:n-issed from ~erviCe or the member hjs Jl(lt been removed ftom service. in which Case the sanction of the Board hiid to be obtained. · · The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1!i12 which was also applicable .. to' the Tamil· Nadti Electricity Board provided for the Payment of greatiuty to· em .. ployees _who would fetife after rendering service for a specified number of . years . . . The petitioner's hu~band retired in 1976 after serving the Tamil Nadu Electricity B0ard for ·about 34 _years and died three.mo.n1hs thereafter. The petitioner was paid_ her husband's · stibscription to the Contributory Provident Fund and interest and the.Electd~ity Bo1lrd's contribution and intereSt and also · thc-gratUity under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 .. The Electricity Board did not pay the·SJ)ecial Contribrition to be ma.de by it to the contributory Pro- vident Fund under. 'Regulation 37. ·on tqC gro~nd that-the specia~· ·contributioll being nothing other than tbe payment of gratuity, they could n.ot be asked to. pay gratuity t\Vice Over, once under Payment of Gratuity Act and a~in under _ Regii1ation 37. The petitiorier having got no relief from ailywhere wrote a letter tQ a!Judge of the Supreme Court which wa.• treated as a writ petitioll: Allowins!the petition, • • KATilEEJA BAI v. SUPDT ENGINEER (Cb;nnappa Reddy, 'J.) 799. HELD :. The E·lectrjcity BOard cannot avoid payn1e·nt of the special -Contribution to Provident Fuiid under their own Provident Fund RegulatiOlIS on the pretext that ii is a.kin to or_ the same as Gratuity payable_ under the Pay- ment of Gratuity Act. In the first place, the Board, in thC:ir Regulations, h3ye themselves Iab~llC:d the Speci31 Contribution under Regulation 37 .as a Special -·contribution to Provident Fund .and- nOt as Gratuity. ·It is not as if they were· utiaware of the word '_Gratuity' -and· what it meant Since it -is found that there is a reference in· Regulation 5 to a·Gratuitt,.Scheme of.. th~.-Tilmil ~a~ Govern- ment ·which had been adopted by the.Bd!rd .. The Special Contr1but1on under Regulation 37 is part of a Well thought out _Provident F·und Scheine designed tO benefit ··good-, efficient and faithfur employees (borrowing th:e words- from the Regulation'itself) by _making annual contributions· in_ addition- to the monthly contributions .und~r Re!iulation JI.· This is what apnears from Regulation 37 itself. There is no justification ror first dubbing it as a gratuity on the ground that it Ii.as some ·or the known ch_aractcristics of gratuity and then proceeding to ·deny the employees the benefit o.f it · Qn the-gt"ound that the Beard are paying gratuity under the. Pa:yment of Gratuity Act. If the Special Contribution has so.me _cOII)mon features with gratuity, it has also distinctive features which ·ctis· ti~guish it .from gratuity payable under the I~r.yment of Gratuity A~t. [803B-F] . . in view of the finding that . .Special. Contrib~tion un<;te~ Regulation 37 is not the same as grat_uity·under Payment of Gratuity Act; the argument that the provision for Special Contribution under Regulation 37 was inconsistent With • the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act .and therefore the Jatier should pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.