CWP No.18329 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18329 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.08.2010 **** Punjab State Electricity Board . . . . Petitioner VS. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate; Mr. PS Mattewal, Advocate; Mr. MS Virk, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 &2 Mr. GS Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1. This order shall dispose of CWPs No. 18329, 19956, 20250 & 21512 of 2008; 202, 203, 214, 215, 216, 217, 239, 241, 267, 690, 837, 855, 861, 862, 1045, 2893, 2899, 2921, 2929, 3697, 3713, 3755, 5348, 5349, 5350, 5351, 5352, 5353, 5354, 5355, 5356, 5357, 5373, 6255, 6304 & 10378 of 2009 preferred by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.18329 of 2008. CWP No.18329 of 2008.doc - 2 – 2. Respondent No.3 (Piara Singh s/o Banta Singh) was appointed as a Fitter/Electrician on 10.09.1966 in the petitioner-Board. He was subsequently appointed as Assistant Lineman w.e.f. 12.01.1970 (ad hoc) followed by regularization of his services w.e.f. 26.03.1971. Respondent No.3 superannuated on 31.05.2004. 3. The petitioner-Board accordingly release the pension, Gratuity and other retiral dues of respondent No.3 in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Civil Service Rules, as are applicable and being followed by the petitioner-Board. Respondent No.3, however, moved an application for payment of ‘Gratuity’ as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short, ‘the 1972 Act’) instead of paying the same under the Punjab Civil Service Rules. 4. Notwithstanding the plea taken by the petitioner-Board before the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chandigarh that the petitioner-Board has been granted exemption from the operation of the 1972 Act vide Govt. Notification dated 08.01.2004 (Annexure P2) with effect from the date the 1972 Act came into force, the Controlling Authority vide its order dated 21.06.2006 (Annexure P3) allowed the application moved by the 3rd respondent and its order has been further upheld by the Regional Labour CWP No.18329 of 2008.doc - 3 – Commissioner vide its order dated 28.06.2007 (Annexure P6) while dismissing the Board’s appeal. 5. Still, aggrieved, the petitioner-Board has approached this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in a batch of cross writ petitions filed by the employees and the Board, a Division Bench of this Court has dealt with the questions as to whether the Board employees are entitled to claim ‘Gratuity’ under the 1972 Act? And as to whether the exemption granted vide notification dated 08.01.2004 is valid in law? The Division Bench vide its decision dated February 27, 2008 rendered in CWP No.5126 of 2004 (Balwant Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another) ruled that the petitioner-Board has got valid granted exemption from the operation of the 1972 Act vide Government Notification dated 08.01.2004 and in view thereof, the Board-employees are not entitled to claim Gratuity under the 1972 Act. The Bench has also held that the composite benefits admissible to the Board employees under the Punjab Civil Service Rules, namely, the pension, Gratuity and other retiral dues are in no way less favourable to them as compared to the Gratuity payable under the 1972 Act. CWP No.18329 of 2008.doc - 4 – 8. For the reasons assigned by this Court in Balwant Singh’s case (supra), the impugned orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the 1972 Act directing payment of Gratuity as per the provisions of 1972 Act, thus, cannot sustain. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.06.2006 & 28.06.2007 (Annexure P4 & P6, respectively) are hereby quashed subject to the binding nature of the decision in the SLP said to have been preferred by the employees before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid Division Bench decision in Balwant Singh’s case (supra). 10. It needs to be mentioned here that learned counsel for the petitioner-Board undertakes that in case the Division Bench judgement in Balwant Singh’s and other connected cases is reversed/modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the employees, namely, the private respondents in these cases shall also be entitled to the same benefit as may be admissible in terms of the final orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. It is accordingly directed that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition has been allowed or the orders by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the 1972 Act, have been set aside, if the other employees whose matters are still CWP No.18329 of 2008.doc - 5 – pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court succeed wholly or in part, the benefit flowing from the Apex Court orders shall be made available to the respondent-employee(s) also within a period of four months from the date of passing of such orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 10.08.2010 vishal shonkar