ATBI 'XT'" WRIT PETITION.No. 2678 ofl993 South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. Tlii'ough General Manager, Soutli Eastem Limited, Korba East Area, P.0. Korba Dist. Bilaspur. ;lds •li:ery. 1. Shri Krislma Das Chand.a S/o. Late P.K.Chanda, Qr. No. C/76, Subhash Biock, P.0. Korba Colliery Distt. Bilaspur, M.P. 2. Controlling Autliority under the Payment of Gratsity Act (Asstt. Ubour Commissioner (C) Bilaspur). 3. Appellate Airthority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (Regional Labour Coimnissioner (C), Jabalpur). WRFT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA LJ. Preseat: Shri P.S.Koshv, Advocate for None for tfae respondents. (Passed on 09°'day of May, 2008) 1. Despite sen'ice of notice/S.P.C., none appears on behatfofthe respondent No. 1. ' 2, Sm-i Koshy, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in tlie present petition has already been settled by this Court in W.P. No. 2326 of 1993 (South Eastem Coaifields Ltd. v. Smt. Jagni Devi & Others) and other connectedmatters decided on 09 May, 2007. 3. I have pei-used the pleadmgs. AS.er hearins leamed counse! appearing for the petitioner, it appears that the issue inyolved in fhe preseHt petition has alreadv been considered and .decidsd bv thiis Court in the matter of South Eastem Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jagni Devi and other coimscted matters (supra). . @; 4. In the iastant case, after nationalization ofthe Coal Industr;', the National Coal Wags Agreements were entered into by the parties providing for the wage stracture and other conditions ofservice includmgthe retiral benefits such as pensioii, gratuitv etc. were provided fbr the workers in coal iixiustry. Under this agreement, fhe maxiinum limit ofpayment ofgratuity had beea fi?;ed at Rs. 75,000;-. In view ofthe sub-section (5) ofSection 4 ofthe Act. rsad v»ith section 14 ofthe A^ct, the employee can avail the benefit under the Payment ofGratuity Act, but ifhe has availedthe henent under the Wage Board Agreement, to that extent tlie benefit under the Pav-ment of Gratuitv Act can be denied to him. Therefore, in mv view both ths authorities uader the Act were justified in allowing the claim of the respondisnts-eitiployee. Iii view ofthe above discussion, the petition requires to be rejected aia is accordmgly rejectsd. In the facts and eircumstances ofthe case, parties are lirectedto beartheir OWTI costs. Ordered accordingly. -.—__„ Sd/- Satish K. Agaihoi Judge ff^