Case: BCH ELECTRIC LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP MEHRA

the rates prescribed in the manner laid down in the Appendix, is to be done only in the case of employees in the Second category. 21. The intent of the Trust Deed and the Scheme is thus clear that the governing principles as regards the amount to be calculated and the rates to be applied have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if an employee is covered by the provisions of the Act. If the amount is to be so calculated according to the provisions of the Act, in case of employees covered by the provisions of the Act, there is no other alternative which is offered by the Company or which is part of any award or agreement or contract entered into between the employer and employees. Thus, no reliance could be placed on Section 4(5) of the Act to submit that the employees are entitled to some greater advantage than what is available under the Act. As stated earlier, for Section 4(5) to apply there must be two alternatives, one in terms of the Act and one as per the award or agreement or contract with the employer. The Scheme on which heavy reliance was placed to submit that it afforded and made available better terms of gratuity itself emphasizes that in case of the employees who are covered under the Act, the amount payable as gratuity shall be in terms of the provisions of the Act. The Scheme does not therefore offer to the employees covered by the Act any other alternative apart from what is payable under the Act. 22. Rather than making available an alternative to the model and modalities of calculation of amount of gratuity, as placed on statute book by the provisions of the Act, the Trust Deed and the Scheme contemplates two kinds of employees. One, who are covered under the provisions of the Act and the other, who are not so covered. The historical background and the changes that the provisions of Section 2(e) and Section 4 have undergone show that not all employees were initially sought to be covered under the Act. Those, who were in wage-brackets greater than what was stipulated in Section 2(e) till it was finally amended to do away with the wage-bracket, were not covered by the Act. The Trust Deed and the Scheme sought to devise an apparatus and make provision for those who were otherwise not covered by the Act and for this reason contemplated two kinds of employees. The Trust Deed and the Scheme were executed and formulated in the year 1979 when the wage-bracket was a definite parameter for an employee to be covered under the Act. The intent of the Trust Deed and the Scheme has to be understood in that perspective. The idea was not to afford to the employees who are covered by the provisions of the Act, a package better than what was made available by the Act, but it was to extend similar benefit to those who would not be covered by the Act. 23. In Beed District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2006) 8 SCC 514 , the gratuity scheme provided by the employer had better rate for computing gratuity but the ceiling limit was lower; whereas the entitlement under the provisions of the Act was at a lesser rate but the ceiling prescribed by the Act was higher than what was provided by the employer. This Court laid down that an employee must take complete package as offered by the employer or that which is available under the Act and he could not have synthesis or combination of some of the terms under the scheme provided by the employer while retaining the other terms offered by the Act. That was a situation where two alternatives were available to the employee. The High Court in the present case, however, distinguished said decision on the ground that the Scheme of the appellant itself provided for the rates as per Section 4(2) of the Act but without upper limit under Section 4(3) of the Act . In our view, the High Court failed to consider the effect and impact of Rule 6(b) of the scheme. The Single Judge did refer to said Rule 6(b) but found that the Rule was so broadly drafted that it could not be construed to contemplate the ceiling limit under Section 4(3) of the Act. In our view, the true import of Rule 6(b) which gets further emphasized by stipulation in the Appendix to the Scheme was lost sight of by the authorities under the Act and by the High Court. If an employee is covered by the provisions of the Act, according to said Rule 6(b), the amount of gratuity has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Appendix to the Scheme reiterates the same principle. Thus, in case of such an employee the gratuity has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and while so calculating, not only the basic principle available in Section 4(2) as to how the gratuity is to be calculated must be applied but also the ceiling which is part of Section 4(3) must also apply. The rates and the modalities of calculations of gratuity as available under the Scheme of the Rules are to apply only to those employees who are not covered by the provisions of the Act. 24. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Authorities under the Act and the High Court erred in accepting the claim preferred by the respondent. We hold that the appellant was right in going by the provisions of the Act in the present matter and by the ceiling prescribed under Section 4(3) of the Act. Any mistakes on its part in making some extra payments to some of the other employees would not create a right in favour of others in the face of the stipulations in the Trust Deed and the Scheme.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]16. Thus, as on the day, when the respondent resigned from his service, that is on 01.06.2012, the relevant ceiling in Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 was at the level of ten lakh rupees and for an employee to be covered by the definition obtaining in Section 2(e) of the Act, there was no wage-bracket or ceilingSimilar submissions were advanced on behalf of the appellant before the High Court, as noted by the Single Judge. However, the submissions were rejected after placing reliance on Section 4(5) of the Act21. The intent of the Trust Deed and the Scheme is thus clear that the governing principles as regards the amount to be calculated and the rates to be applied have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if an employee is covered by the provisions of the Act. If the amount is to be so calculated according to the provisions of the Act, in case of employees covered by the provisions of the Act, there is no other alternative which is offered by the Company or which is part of any award or agreement or contract entered into between the employer and employees. Thus, no reliance could be placed on Section 4(5) of the Act to submit that the employees are entitled to some greater advantage than what is available under the Act. As stated earlier, for Section 4(5) to apply there must be two alternatives, one in terms of the Act and one as per the award or agreement or contract with the employer. The Scheme on which heavy reliance was placed to submit that it afforded and made available better terms of gratuity itself emphasizes that in case of the employees who are covered under the Act, the amount payable as gratuity shall be in terms of the provisions of the Act. The Scheme does not therefore offer to theemployees covered by the Act any other alternative apart from what is payable under the Act22. Rather than making available an alternative to the model and modalities of calculation of amount of gratuity, as placed on statute book by the provisions of the Act, the Trust Deed and the Scheme contemplates two kinds of employees. One, who are covered under the provisions of the Act and the other, who are not so covered. The historical background and the changes that the provisions of Section 2(e) and Section 4 have undergone show that not all employees were initially sought to be covered under the Act. Those, who were in wage-brackets greater than what was stipulated in Section 2(e) till it was finally amended to do away with the wage-bracket, were not covered by the Act. The Trust Deed and the Scheme sought to devise an apparatus and make provision for those who were otherwise not covered by the Act and for this reason contemplated two kinds of employees. The Trust Deed and the Scheme were executed and formulated in the year 1979 when the wage-bracket was a definite parameter for an employee to be covered under the Act. The intent of the Trust Deed and the Scheme has to be understood in that perspective. The idea was not to afford to the employees who are covered by the provisions of the Act, a package better than what was made available by the Act, butit was to extend similar benefit to those who would not be covered by the ActIn our view, the High Court failed to consider the effect and impact of Rule 6(b) of the scheme. The Single Judge did refer to said Rule 6(b) but found that the Rule was so broadly drafted that it could not be construed to contemplate the ceiling limit under Section 4(3) of the Act. In our view, the true import of Rule 6(b) which gets further emphasized bystipulation in the Appendix to the Scheme was lost sight of by the authorities under the Act and by the High Court. If an employee is covered by the provisions of the Act, according to said Rule 6(b), the amount of gratuity has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Appendix to the Scheme reiterates the same principle. Thus, in case of such an employee the gratuity has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and while so calculating, not only the basic principle available in Section 4(2) as to how the gratuity is to be calculated must be applied but also the ceiling which is part of Section 4(3) must also apply. The rates and the modalities of calculations of gratuity as available under the Scheme of the Rules are to apply only to those employees who are not covered by the provisions of the Act24. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Authorities under the Act and the High Court erred in accepting the claim preferred by the respondent. We hold that the appellant was right in going by the provisions of the Act in the present matter and by the ceiling prescribed under Section 4(3) of the Act. Any mistakes on its part in making some extra payments to some of the other employees would not create a right in favour of others in the face of the stipulations in the Trust Deed and the Scheme.