SYNDICATE BANK Vs. R.K. SATHIABALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Bank is aggrieved by Exhibit P7 order by which the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act upheld the decision of the Controlling Authority that an amount of Rs.1,83,837/- is payable to the 1st respondent towards difference of gratuity and interest upto 30.9.2010 along with interest on Rs.73,048/- from 1.10.2010 till the date of payment. The controlling authority had passed it its order on an application filed by the 1 st respondent under Section 7(4)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') read with Sub-Rule(1) of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Central Rules. In his application, the 1st respondent had alleged shortfall of Rs.80,000/- in the gratuity paid to him by the petitioner. The short facts, as narrated in the application, are as under;

(2.) The applicant had joined the service of the Bank on 11.6.1958 and had superannuated from service on 31.7.1994 after 36 years of service. At the time of his retirement, the applicant was drawing emoluments of Rs.10,200/- per mensem (revised) and was eligible for gratuity amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. But an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alone was paid on the premise that the maximum gratuity payable at that point of time was Rs.1,00,000/-. The applicant had claimed higher amount of gratuity based on a wage revision brought about on the basis of a bilateral settlement. Similarly placed employees had taken up the issue earlier and the matter had reached up to the Apex Court and was decided in favour of the employees, holding that actual gratuity worked out in accordance with the revised pay should be paid.

(3.) Opposing the application, the Bank had contended that the wages of its employees was revised vide the Sixth Bipartite Settlement, which was implemented under circular No.94/1995/BC. Different dates were specified in the settlement for payment of different components. The date fixed for pay and allowance was 1.7.1993 and for gratuity, 1.11.1994. The applicant having retired from service on 31.7.1994, was not entitled for refixation of gratuity based on the settlement. It was contended that while dismissing the Special Leave Petition by the Bank, against the judgment by which benefit of pay revision was granted to certain other retired employees, the Apex Court had left the question of law open.