P. RAJAN SANDHI versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 21-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 584 
P. RAJAN SANDHI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4095 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T. S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
C 
WORKING 
JOURNALISTS 
AND 
OTHER 
NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) 
AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1955: 
s.5(1) -
Payment of gratuity - Assistant Editor in a 
printing and publishing company - Dismissed from service 
D after a disciplinary inquiry - Claim for gratuity - Held: Not 
maintainable - There is a difference between the provisions 
for denial of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and 
in the Working Journalists Act -
Under the Working 
Journalists Act, gratuity can be denied if the service is 
E terminated as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary act, 
as has been done in the instant case - s. 5 of the Working 
Journalists Act being a special law will prevail over s.4(6) of 
the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a general law -
s. 5(1 }(a)(i) of the Working Journalists Act does not require any 
F 
a/legation of proof of any damage or loss to, or destruction 
of, property, etc. as is required under the general law, i.e. the 
Payment of Gratuity Act - All that is required under the 
Working Journalists Act is that the termination should be as 
a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, which is 
G the position in the case at hand - Thus, if the service of an 
employee has been terminated by way of disciplinary action 
under the Working Journalists Act, he is not entitled to gratuity 
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - s.4(6). 
H 
584 
P. RAJAN SANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
585 
G. P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation Ninth 
A 
Edition, 2004 pp. 133 and 134 - referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4095 of 2006. 
B 
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.07.2005 of the High 
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2131 of 2002 (0). 
Ron Sastian, Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellant. 
K.V. Viswanathan, B. Ragunath, Abhishek Kaushik (for C 
Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.) Sushma Manchanda, Sonia 
Malhotra, B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
This Appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the 
impugned judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 
D 
29.07.2005 passed in W.A. No. 2131 of 2002. 
E 
The facts of the case have already been set out in the 
impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same 
here, except wherever necessary. 
F 
The appellant herein was an Assistant Editor in 
Mathrubhumami Printing and Publishing Company Limited, 
(respondent No. 2 herein) which is a newspaper publishing 
company. The appellant was charge-sheeted for making false 
allegations against the Managing Director of respondent No. 
2 and of using discourteous language and for other various 
G 
misconduct. An enquiry was conducted and, after giving him 
opportunity of hearing, the enquiry office found him guilty. The 
appellant was ultimately dismissed from service on 20.06.1988. 
An industrial dispute was raised and the Industrial Tribunal 
upheld the order of dismissal. The appellant challenged the 
H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
order of the Industrial Tribunal by filing a Writ Petition which was 
dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant unsuccessfully challenged 
the dismissal of the Writ Petition by filing a Writ Appeal which 
was dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant 
against the dismissal of the Writ Appeal was also dismissed 
B 
by this Court. 
In this round of litigation, now the question is about the 
appellant's claim for gratuity. 
The claim of the appellant for gratuity was rejected by the 
C Management of respondent No. 2 against whose order the 
appellant has filed a Writ Petition which has been allowed by 
the learned single Judge of the High Court. However, by the 
impugned judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 2131 of 2002 
the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of 
D the learned single Judge. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The learned counsel for the appellant relies on Section 4(6) 
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) which reads 
as under:-
"Section 4(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1 ),-
(a)The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been 
terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence 
causing any damage or loss to, or de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.