ASHA DEVI JAUHARI Vs. SHARDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Krishna Prasad Jauhari was an employee in the State Bank of Bikaner, He died leaving assets including some amount of gratuity payable by the said Bank, His widow Smt. Sharda Devi, opposite party No. 1, made an application for succession certificate in the Court of civil Judge, Bareilly. In this application amongst the assets of the deceased the amount of gratuity was also mentioned. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the applicant who is one of the daughters of the deceased asserting that she was the nominee in respect of the gratuity and that the dispute in regard to the gratuity could be decided only by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In other words the assertion of the applicant was that the civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the opposite party No. 1 was entitled to the amount of gratuity in her capacity of being the widow of the deceased or the applicant was entitled to it as the nominee of the deceased. The preliminary objection did not find favour with the civil Judge and he overruled it. Against that order a revision was filed by the applicant before the District Judge. The revision was heard and dismissed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bareilly, on February 17, 1976. Aggrieved the applicant has preferred the present revision.

(2.) TWO submissions were made by counsel for the applicant (1) that the Courts below were wrong in taking the view that the State Bank of Bikaner was not an establishment within the meaning of Payment of Gratuity Act and (2) that the civil Courts did not have the jurisdiction to decide any dispute raised by rival claimants in regard to the right of receiving the amount of gratuity.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the applicant at some length I am of opinion that it is not necessary to decide the first question as to whether the State Bank, Bikaner is an establishment within the meaning of the Act or not for the decision can be disposed of on the second question It was urged by counsel for the applicant that Subsection (4) of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, which Act according to counsel for the applicant, was a self-contained enactment, conferred on the Controlling Authority exclusive jurisdiction to decide even disputes as to the right of a person to receive the amount of gratuity and consequently the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred. In my opinion there is no substance in this submission. It is true that the heading cannot control the plain meaning of the section but in case of ambiguity assistance can be taken from even the heading. The heading of Section 7 is "determination of the amount of gratuity. " Sub-section (4) of Section 7 reads: