Case: CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR Vs. RAJESH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS

the calculation of payment of gratuity and ad hoc payment with interest. Hence, the appellant shall succeed 2 in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. It is needless to mention that the question raised by respondent no. 2 is kept open. 12. The Management filed a petition for review. It was dismissed on 13.08.2015. The curative petition was also dismissed on 03.03.2016. 13. Following the order passed by this Court in C.A.No.4258 of 2015 on 05.05.2015, in the case of Shri Kashi Prasad Tripathi, the High Court of Allahabad dismissed all the writ petitions filed in respect of the other employees. Therefore, challenging such orders in the case of other employees, the Management of the Fertiliser Corporation has come up with a batch of 98 appeals. The Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation has come up with one appeal that arises out of similar judgment of the Calcutta High Court. 14. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the ad hoc monthly payment made by the Management pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on 18.08.2000, is liable to be treated as part of the wages within the sweep of the said expression under Section 2(s) of the Act, especially in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Shri Kashi Prasad Tripathi. 15. We have already extracted the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2015 in C.A.No.4258 of 2015 in the case of Shri Kashi Prasad Tripathi. The said order does not deal with this question. The said order has gone on the basis that the computation of the quantum of gratuity is exclusively within the domain of the authorities under the statute and that the High Court is not competent to interfere with the same. Therefore, the order passed in the case of Kashi Prasad Tripathi cannot be taken to have laid down any law to the effect that the ad hoc payment will form part of wages. The respondents, therefore, cannot really take advantage of the order passed in the case of Kashi Prasad Tripathi, merely on the ground that the very same question of law was raised by the Management in the civil appeal and thereafter in the petition for review and curative petition. At times, this Court refuses to go into the questions of law, when a single individual armed with an order in his favour from the High Court is pitted against the State. Whenever the State or instrumentalities of State come up with appeals challenging small benefits granted to individual litigants, this Court applies the test of proportionality to see whether the quantum of benefits granted to the individual concerned, justifies the examination of the question of law, at the cost of that little man from a far off place. The refusal of this Court to go into the question of law in such cases, cannot be treated as tantamounting to answering the question of law in a particular manner. Therefore, dehors order of this Court in Kashi Prasad Tripathi, we are obliged to deal with the question of law that arises in this batch. 16. Section 2(s) of the Act defines wages, as follows:- 2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— Xxx xxx xxx (s) wages means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employments and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance. 17. The definition of the expression is in 3 parts, the first part indicating the meaning of the expression, the second part indicating what is included therein and the third part indicating what is not included therein. In the first part of the definition, the emphasis is on what is earned by the employee in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment . 18. Irrespective of whether what was earned has been paid or remained payable, the same is included in the definition, provided it is in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. 19. Keeping in mind the above definition, if we go back to historical facts, it would be clear that the employees initiated the first round of litigation before various High Courts, for the grant of the benefit of revision of pay scales, way back in the year 1996, on the ground that the employees of other PSUs have been granted revision on par with the Government servants. It will thus be clear that what was claimed in the first round of litigation was not what was payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, this Court was clear in its interim order dated 18.08.2000 as to how the ad hoc payment ordered there under should be treated. Even in the final order, this Court made it clear that what was paid was only ad hoc. 20. It is a fundamental principle of law that a party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him. Merely because of the fortuitous circumstance of the Voluntary Separation Scheme coming into effect before the transferred cases were finally dismissed by this Court by an order dated 25.04.2003, creating an illusion as though the last drawn pay included this ad hoc payment, it is not possible to go against the fundamental rule that the benefits of an interim order would automatically go when the party who secured it, failed in the final stage. 21. In The Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 329 this Court clarified the meaning of the expression wages under Section 2(s) of the very same enactment, as follows: We clarify that wages will mean and included basic wages and Dearness Allowance and nothing else.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]15. We have already extracted the order passed by this Court on 05.05.2015 in C.A.No.4258 of 2015 in the case of Shri Kashi Prasad Tripathi. The said order does not deal with this question. The said order has gone on the basis that the computation of the quantum of gratuity is exclusively within the domain of the authorities under the statute and that the High Court is not competent to interfere with the same. Therefore, the order passed in the case of Kashi Prasad Tripathi cannot be taken to have laid down any law to the effect that the ad hoc payment will form part of wages. The respondents, therefore, cannot really take advantage of the order passed in the case of Kashi Prasad Tripathi, merely on the ground that the very same question of law was raised by the Management in the civil appeal and thereafter in the petition for review and curative petition. At times, this Court refuses to go into the questions of law, when a single individual armed with an order in his favour from the High Court is pitted against the State. Whenever the State or instrumentalities of State come up with appeals challenging small benefits granted to individual litigants, this Court applies the test of proportionality to see whether the quantum of benefits granted to the individual concerned, justifies the examination of the question of law, at the cost of that little man from a far off place. The refusal of this Court to go into the question of law in such cases, cannot be treated as tantamounting to answering the question of law in a particular manner. Therefore, dehors order of this Court in Kashi Prasad Tripathi, we are obliged to deal with the question of law that arises in this batch.19. Keeping in mind the above definition, if we go back to historical facts, it would be clear that the employees initiated the first round of litigation before various High Courts, for the grant of the benefit of revision of pay scales, way back in the year 1996, on the ground that the employees of other PSUs have been granted revision on par with the Government servants. It will thus be clear that what was claimed in the first round of litigation was not what was payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, this Court was clear in its interim order dated 18.08.2000 as to how the ad hoc payment ordered there under should be treated. Even in the final order, this Court made it clear that what was paid was only ad hoc.20. It is a fundamental principle of law that a party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him. Merely because of the fortuitous circumstance of the Voluntary Separation Scheme coming into effect before the transferred cases were finally dismissed by this Court by an order dated 25.04.2003, creating an illusion as though the last drawn pay included this ad hoc payment, it is not possible to go against the fundamental rule that the benefits of an interim order would automatically go when the party who secured it, failed in the final stage.21. In The Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 329  this Court clarified the meaning of the expression wages under Section 2(s) of the very same enactment, as follows: We clarify that wages will mean and included basic wages and Dearness Allowance and nothing else.