GRATUITY CASES !

” Com. SBC Karunakaran writes:

Gratuity case – There are orders passed by three DLCs two by DLC Hyd and DLC Ajmer saying DA has to be included under internal scheme while the third DLC held the opposite view.

The other view regarding one half month’s pay means one and a half month’s pay is patently wrong and will not stand scrutiny at higher courts.

The question of addition of DA will be further tested before High courts and ultimately before SC. So it is a long way to reach that finality.

 ARISE has not stopped any member litigating on it. We hold the opinion that the two DLCs order is not correct while other affiliates may hold different opinions. There is no statutory right for better terms or to have identical component to pay gratuity in an internal scheme.

All the Payment of gratuity Act says is that one is entitled to better of the two, i.e., Act or Scheme terms. Nowhere the Act says that an internal scheme ought to have gratuity linked only to wages and not to basic pay. Every Scheme under regulation of public sector undertakings ( in this instance the rural banks) is placed before parliament and had the approval of parliament as a subordinate legislation. This is statute and cannot be lightly played with by DLCs who do not have such power unlike HC and SC.

 In short there, Payment of Gratuity Act does not mandate internal scheme should have better terms or that Scheme gratuity has to be linked to wages including DA and not to basic pay.

But ARISE cannot ask its members to subscribe to its opinion not members compel ARISE to accept the irrational orders of two DLC as against the contrary view of one DLC that aligns with ARISE view. “

UNQUOTE

The third Order referred to by our GS is that of the Order issued by DLC, Dhanbad dated 15th November 2018, for which GS had given his opinion at that time which is as follows :-

” In my opinion the above order exposes the fallacy of other two orders Viz of DLCC (Hyd) and RLCC (Ranchi). It ridicules the definition of one half month to mean one and a half month. It says one is entitled to only a half month’s pay for every year of service after 30 years of service. As regards having only Pay without DA for internal scheme as per Service Regulations, it says that the regulation is a subordinate legislation that has passed the scrutiny of the Parliament and if the legislators approved to exclude DA in the gratuity under Service Regulations, ALCC or DLCC can not interfere with it. Other than these legal grounds,  it also speaks of financial burden and that Scheme can expect to offer better than Act between 3% and 10% and not like 100% and above which is an unreasonable expectation.  In my opinion, this Order is correct interpretation of law and will be upheld by superior courts. “

Hope the position and our stand on this issue is clear to the members as of now.

DLC, Dhanbad Order dated 15.11.2018 is attached herewith for your information.

Regards,

Krishnaraj P

Joint General Secretary