LexNAGAR AYUKT NAGAR NIGAM, KANPUR versus SRI MUJIB ULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1028
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
NAGAR AYUKT NAGAR NIGAM, KANPUR
v.
SRI MUJIB ULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 2628 of 2017)
APRIL 02, 2019
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – ss.1(3)(c) and 14 – Retirement
and Benefits and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1962 – r.4(1)
– Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 – s.548 –
Employees of Municipal Corporation claimed gratuity by invoking
the jurisdiction of the controlling authorities under the Act, 1972 –
Controlling authorities allowed the petition for gratuity in favour
of the employees – Appellant contended that gratuity is payable in
terms of r.4(1) of the 1967 Regulations published under the Act,
1959 – Therefore, the employees of the Municipalities were entitled
to gratuity only in terms of such Regulations and not under the Act,
1972 – High Court held that employees of Municipalities were
entitled to the gratuity in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1972 –
On appeal, held: Central Government had published a notification
dated 8.1.1982 in terms of s.1(3)(c) of the Act, 1972 which made it
clear that the Act is applicable to the local bodies i.e. the
Municipalities – s.14 of the Act, 1972 has given an overriding effect
over any other inconsistent provision in any other enactment – In
view of s.14, the provision in the State Act contemplating payment
of Gratuity will be inapplicable in respect of the employees of the
local bodies – Thus, there is no error in the orders passed by the
controlling authorities under the Act and as maintained by the High
Court – General Clauses Act, 1987 – s.3(31).
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. In terms of the Section 1(3)(c) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972, the Central Government has published a
notification on 08.01.1982 and specified Local Bodies in which
ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 1028
1028
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
day of the preceding twelve months as a class of establishment
to which this Act shall apply. The notification dated 08.01.1982
was not referred to before the High Court. Such notification
makes it abundantly clear that the Act, 1972 is applicable to the
local bodies i.e., the Municipalities. Section 14 of the Act, 1972
has given an overriding effect over any other inconsistent
provision in any other enactment. In view of Section 14 of the
Act, the provision in the State Act contemplating payment of
Gratuity will be inapplicable in respect of the employees of the
local bodies. [Paras 10, 11 and 12][1032-F; 1033-C; E]
2. The entire argument of the appellant is that the State
Act confers the restrictive benefit of gratuity than what is
conferred under the Central Act. Such argument is not tenable in
view of Section 14 of the Act and that liberal payment of gratuity
is in fact in the interest of the employees. Thus, the gratuity would
be payable under the Act, 1972. Such is the view taken by the
Controlling Authority. In view of the aforesaid, there is no error
in the orders passed by the Controlling Authorities under the
Act and as maintained by the High Court. [Paras 14, 15]
[1033-G-H; 1034-A]
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash
Sharma and Another AIR 1999 SC 293: (1998) 7 SCC
221 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1998) 7 SCC 221
referred to
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2628 of
2017
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2017 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.19016 of 2007
With
Civil Appeal No.2629 of 2017.
Anurag Dubey, Satpal Wadhwa, Pramod Kumar, S.R. Setia, Sunil
Kumar Verma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vinay Garg, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advs.
for the Respondents.
NAGAR AYUKT NAGAR NIGAM, KANPUR v.
SRI MUJIB ULLAH KHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1030
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA J.
1. The challenge in Civil Appeal No. 2628 of 2017 is to an order
dated 19.04.2007 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby an order dated 08.12.2006passed
by the Controlling Authority, Kanpurunder the Payment of Gratuity Act,
19721 was not interfered with.
2. Civil Appeal No. 2629 of 2017 has also been taken up along
with present appeal wherein the challenge is to an order dated 02.05.2007
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upholding an order dated
29.04.2006of CExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.