GANDIV HINDI DAILY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sunil Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.H. Ojha appears for respondent No. 4 and Sri P.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The impugned order dated 15.6.2013 has been passed under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the Controlling Authority cum Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P. Varanasi directing the petitioner to pay gratuity amount of Rs. 1,42,674/- to respondent No. 4 which has not been paid to him on his retirement. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.12.2013 under Section 7(7) of the Act due to non-compliance of the condition of pre-deposit. Aggrieved with these two orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that the matter of payment of gratuity to respondent No. 4 is governed by provisions of Working Journalist and other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 which is a special law and not by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which is a general law and as such the impugned order passed by the authorities concerned are wholly without jurisdiction.

(2.) It is the case of respondent No. 4 that he was working in the establishment of the petitioner as special reporter since January, 1973 and he retired on 31.12.2005, but no amount of gratuity was paid by the petitioner to him on his retirement. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 was employed since the year 1994. On his retirement, he moved an application for extension of service and it was orally agreed that during the period of extended service he will be paid gratuity along with salary and accounting shall be done later on. The payment has been made accordingly to the respondent No. 4.

(3.) Thus, the main dispute between the parties is as to whether the respondent No. 4 being a working journalist shall be governed by the provision of Act of 1955 or the Act of 1972 for the purposes of computation and payment of gratuity. The quantum is also in dispute because of disputed period of service of respondent No. 4 but this Court does not intend to express any opinion on this issue for reasons that the question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the case. From the very beginning the petitioner has been raising the objection that since the respondent No. 4 is a working journalist governed by Special Provision of the Act of 1955, and therefore, no proceedings can be carried under the provision of the Act, 1972 which is a general law. I find that in the case of P. Rajan Sandhi v. Union of India & another, 2010 10 SC 338 para. 11, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-