- (1.) The present challenge is directed at the instance of the petitioner against an order passed by the appellate court, reversing an order virtually refusing the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1-wife for injunction and granting injunction restraining the petitioner from availing his retirement benefit from the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, his employers, without making proper arrangement for safeguarding the benefit that may be occurred to the opposite party no. 1 upon the fate of the suit, in view of the purported claim of the opposite party no. 1 to be the wife of the petitioner, being yet to be adjudicated.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, invoked by the appellate court, does not apply to the present case, since the petitioner, being a railway employee, is governed by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner cites a judgment reported at (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 643 (Union of India and another Vs. Manik Lal Banerjee) in support of the proposition that if a person is employed with the Central Government, including a railway employee, and is governed by certain rules for payment of gratuity, in the said case the said Rules of 1993, the Act of 1972 does not apply to the said employee of the railways.;