(Prayers: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order in W.P(MD)No.5134 of 2020 dated 30.01.2023 by allowing this Writ Appeal.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order in W.P(MD)No.859 of 2022 dated 30.01.2023 by allowing this Writ Appeal.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order in W.P(MD)No.21093 of 2021 dated 30.01.2023 by allowing this Writ Appeal.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act to set aside the order in W.P(MD)No.17828 of 2021 dated 30.01.2023 by allowing this Writ Appeal.)

Common Judgment

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. Heard both sides.

2. The appellants herein were employees of TANGEDCO. Contending that their gratuity claims were not honoured, they filed applications before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Awards were passed in their favour. Challenging the same, TANGEDCO filed writ petitions before this Court. The learned single Judge vide order dated 30.01.2023 set aside the order passed by the controlling authority and allowed the writ petitions. Assailing the same, these writ appeals have been filed.

3. Paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the order of the learned single Judge read as follows:

               “6. As per the power available under Section 5 of the Act, the State Government has issued G.O.(Ms.).No. 699, Labour and Employment Department, dated 16.03.1983, exempting from the application of Payment of Gratuity Act to the respondent Corporation and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.75 of 2018. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.09.2018, set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and confirmed the exemption granted to the respondent Corporation and the decision of the Apex Court relied on by the counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders.

               7. ...

               8. The issue arises in the present writ petitions is whether the person, who receiving the pension, is entitled for gratuity or not. For better appreciation, Section 5 of the said Act reads as follows:

               Power to exempt “(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the employees in such establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act.

               (2) The appropriate Government may, by notification and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any employee or class of employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act, if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, such employee or class of employees are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act.

               (3) A notification issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be issued retrospectively a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, but no such notification shall be issued so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person. ”

               9. A perusal of Section 5 of the Act reveals that the State Government have power to exempt any establishment or any employee for getting gratuity amount, if they received gratuity or pensionary benefits not less than the benefits conferred under this Act. Admittedly, the petitioners are the retired employees of the respondent Corporation and they are also pensioners and already they were paid the death cum retirement gratuity under the Pension Scheme. Apart from that, they have made applications before the Gratuity authority claiming gratuity amount under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No. 33704 of 2002 filed by the employee of the respondent Corporation claiming gratuity amount under the Act 1972. However, the same was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order and held in favour of the respondent Board. Equally, it is also undisputed that the State Government granted exemption to the respondent Corporation from application of the Act vide G.O.(Ms.).No.699, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.03.1983. Further, this Court has perused the order of learned single Judge and the learned single Judge order was modified by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, as a judicial discipline, this measure was followed by the Division Bench of this Court and not carrying the Apex Court decision. In the Apex Court decision, the establishment, who was arrayed as a party before the Apex Court, was not exempted from payment of gratuity. However, in the present cases, exemption was granted to the respondent Corporation from payment of gratuity in respect of the person, who receiving pension from the respondent Corporation.

               10. In view of the above, the writ petition in W.P. (MD).No.5134 of 2020 filed by the respondent Corporation is allowed and the other writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.859 of 2022, 17828 of 2021 and 21093 of 2021 filed by the employees of the Corporation are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

4. We do not find any error in the approach adopted by the learned single Judge. The Government had specifically exempted the corporation from the applicability of the said Act. Therefore, the controlling authority lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the employees of TANGEDCO. There is no merit in these writ appeals.

5. These Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.