E I D PARRY I LIMITED Vs. G OMKAR MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases the respondents-employees were in the employment of the appellant between the years 1958 and 1984. On October 1, 1984 voluntary retirement scheme was introduced and the respondents availed of that benefit and left the services after obtaining the terminal benefits as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act'). Thereafter petitions were filed under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') claiming the difference between the gratuity received by them and the gratuity payable under Section 40 of the State Act. Before the Authority under the State Act, three objections were raised that (i) there has been inordinate delay in preferring the claim; (ii) for payment of gratuity the Central Act prevails over the State Act, and (iii) the question whether the gratuity payable under the Central Act is more favourable than the State Act could not be examined by the trial Court concerned. The trial Court, however, gave relief to the workmen. The appellate authority dismissed all the three appeals. Revision petitions filed before the High Court also stood dismissed. Hence these appeals by special leave.

(2.) Shri Narayan B. Shetye, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Central Act is a complete Code containing detailed provisions and creates right of payment of gratuity and, therefore, the Central Act should prevail over the State Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur, (1980) 1 SCR 953 : (AIR 1979 SC 1981 : 1980 Lab IC 1084). In that case the issue before the Court was whether for payment of gratuity an application could be made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it was held that such an application could not be filed under the said Act. Therefore, this decision cannot be of any assistance to the appellant inasmuch as the question before us is whether the Central Act or the State Act would apply for payment of gratuity.

(3.) The decision in M.S.R. Murthy v. Arya Somayajula Yagneswara Chenulu, 1985 Lab IC 189 (Andh Pra) also is of no use to the appellant inasmuch as the State Act is held not to operate to the extent the Central Act prevails. In the present case, on facts, it is found that the Central Act is not applicable.