State of Punjab versus Labour Court, Jullundur & Ors.
How later courts have used it
- The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to a broad range of establishments, including Anganwadi centres and Central Government departments.1,2
- Gratuity is a statutory right enforceable under s. 7(3); it cannot be withheld as security for dues.3
- The Act is special legislation with a self-contained mechanism, so an appellate authority cannot refuse to adjudicate a gratuity claim pending a parallel labour court matter.4
- Persons governed by a separate gratuity code under their own rules, such as Gramin Dak Sewaks, are not 'employees' within the Act.5
- Courts will not entertain a writ petition for gratuity where the claimant has a specific alternative statutory remedy, such as under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act.6,7,8
- The residual expression in other welfare statutes, like s. 1(5) of the ESI Act, is not restricted by ejusdem generis, and courts reject Article 14 challenges to coverage choices.9,10,11
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements in this sample are dominated by questions about the reach of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the enforceability of gratuity claims. Several courts treated the authority as establishing that the Act applies to a broad range of establishments and that gratuity is a statutory right, not a discretionary benefit. The Supreme Court applied the reasoning to Anganwadi workers, holding that such centres are 'establishments' under s. 1(3)(b). A Karnataka court applied this to a Central Government department, noting the objection about 'establishment' was settled.3,1,12,2
The right to gratuity is repeatedly enforced as a substantive right. Courts held that gratuity is a statutory right enforceable under s. 7(3), and cannot be withheld for outstanding dues or as security. Where an appellate authority refused to adjudicate a claim pending a parallel wage claim, the court held this refusal was 'wholly unwarranted' because the Act is special legislation with a self-contained enforcement mechanism. Another court emphasised that the Act, being welfare legislation, is to be construed liberally. In contrast, some courts in this sample declined to interfere, finding that employees of co-operative societies must first exhaust the statutory remedy under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, which is a specific and self-contained code for their terminal benefits, before seeking a writ remedy.3,4,12,6,7,8
The authority also dealt with the Act's scope and exclusions. Courts here considered who is an 'employee' for the purpose of the Act. The Supreme Court held that Gramin Dak Sewaks, governed by separate rules providing a gratuity code, are not 'employees' under the Act. The authority itself held that retrenchment falls within the definition of 'retirement' [AUTH]. The judgements differ on whether pending civil or labour court proceedings bar a gratuity claim; some courts enforced the claim despite a pending parallel dispute, while others held specific statutory remedies for co-operative employees must be exhausted. The question of applicability also extended to other statutes, with several judgements applying the caselaw to the ESI Act's applicability to educational institutions, holding that its residual expression is not restricted by ejusdem generis.5,4,6,7,8,9,10,11
Citing judgements
Ms Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Sri v Prasad Sr Deputy General Manager Law Vs Sri Surendra Kumar Sinha
Outcome: DismissedDistinguishedThe High Court dismissed the writ petition filed to quash an appellate order awarding gratuity to a retired employee. The court held that statutory rights under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be denied solely for housing arrears unless specific forfeiture conditions or statutory rules are fulfilled.
DismissedDistinguishedOpenThe Kerala State Electricity Board,Rep.by Its Secretary,Vydhyuthi Bhavan,Pattom,Thiruvananthapuram Vs N.Sreekumaran NAIR,TC.41/1895
Outcome: DismissedDistinguishedThis second appeal concerns a retired employee's claim for interest on delayed pension benefits. The trial court dismissed the suit due to financial stringency, but the first appellate court held the employer liable under the Payment of Gratuity Act and ordered recovery.
DismissedDistinguishedOpenIn a common order disposing of multiple writ petitions, the High Court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision to set aside a gratuity order obtained by collusion. The Court quashed revenue recovery certificates issued under Section 8 of the Gratuity Act, directing a fresh hearing on entitlement.
AllowedDistinguishedOpenAnganwadi worker helper gratuity; Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Section 1(3)(b) establishment; ICDS; National Food Security Act 2013 Sections 4-6; Article 47 Constitution; honorarium held to be wages Section 2(s); employee Section 2(e); appropriate Government Section 2(a);
AllowedRelied onOpenGramin Dak Sewak gratuity; Extra Departmental Agent; Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 — s. 2(e) exclusion, s. 1(3)(b) establishment, s. 4(1); Indian Post Office Act 1898 s. 2(k); Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011 — rr. 3-A(i), 6(1), 6(13); ex gratia gratuity; bar on gratuity upon voluntary resignation;
AllowedRelied onOpenIndustrial dispute over retrospective effect of wage revision, linkage of dearness allowance, and gratuity scheme for cinema workmen. The Court upheld the Tribunal's discretion on retrospectivity, remanded the dearness allowance linkage issue, and held that better gratuity terms could be awarded beyond the Payment of…
FollowedOpen
Show 6 more
Dismissing a batch of writ petitions by Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur, the court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to municipal corporations as local bodies covered by the Central Government notification dated 08.01.1982, and that the Corporation's 1990 retirement benefit regulations cannot prevail over it…
DismissedRelied onOpenCertiorarified mandamus writ petition by M/s. Karaikal Co-op Milk Supply Society against workman V. Ramakrishnan challenging dismissal of I.A. No. 36 of 2019 (filed under Section 11 / Section 11-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Rule 10(B)(9) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957) to set aside the…
AllowedRelied onOpenMadras HC writ petition (W.P.No.13022 of 2020, decided 22.04.2025, Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete): retired TNSTC (Coimbatore, Erode Region) driver's gratuity appeal dismissed by Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (AGA 53/2019, order dated 12.03.2020) citing parallel Labour Court proceeding and…
AllowedRelied onOpenESI coverage of private educational and medical institutions employing 20 or more persons was upheld. The court rejected the discrimination challenge and the request to defer contributions until judgment. All writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to seek statutory exemption.
DismissedRelied onOpenPrivate educational and medical institutions challenged extension of ESI coverage to establishments employing 20 or more persons. The court upheld the notification, rejected the discrimination challenge and refused to defer contributions until judgment.
DismissedRelied onOpenWrit petitions challenged a State Government notification extending the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 to private educational and medical institutions. The High Court held such institutions are establishments within Section 1(5), rejected the Article 14 discrimination claim and the plea that better facilities or…
DismissedRelied onOpen
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972; casual labourer / daily wager gratuity entitlement; Central Excise Department as 'establishment'; Section 14 overriding effect; Section 5 power to exempt; Section 2(e) definition of employee; Section 4(1)(c) gratuity on death; continuous service 21 years; Karnataka HC W.P.
DismissedReferredOpenRetired Anganwadi Workers and Helpers of Tripura sought gratuity after the State offered only its pension/one-time financial benefit scheme. Holding that Anganwadi centres are 'establishments' under Section 1(3)(b)-(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the High Court directed payment of gratuity with interest and…
AllowedReferredOpenCCI v. Bharti Airtel (Supreme Court, December 05, 2018): jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India versus TRAI in the telecom sector; RJIL information under Section 19(1) alleging cartel by IDOs (Airtel, Vodafone, Idea) and COAI over denial/delay of POIs and MNP;
AllowedReferredOpenSingle Judge dismissed writ petitions filed by retired co-operative society employees seeking terminal benefits. The Court held that since the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act provides an effective alternative remedy under Sections 153 and 154, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable without…
DismissedFollowedOpenPetitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing co-operative society respondents to disburse retirement benefits. Court held that suitables under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act apply, and an alternative remedy exists under Section 153. Writ not maintainable without exhausting that remedy.
DismissedReferredOpenWrit petition seeking a direction to settle the salary arrears, provident fund, gratuity, earned leave salary and other terminal benefits of the petitioner's deceased husband, an accountant in a co-operative housing society.
DismissedReferredOpen
Show 4 more
Retired co-operative bank employee sought a writ directing disbursement of gratuity, provident fund, leave salary and group insurance withheld pending surcharge and criminal proceedings.
DismissedReferredOpenA retired Secretary of a primary agricultural co-operative credit society sought a mandamus for payment of gratuity, provident fund and earned leave salary with interest, his terminal benefits having been withheld while surcharge proceedings and a criminal case were pending.
DismissedReferredOpenA retired secretary of a primary agricultural co-operative society challenged his termination and sought gratuity, provident fund and earned leave benefits. The court held that co-operative societies are not 'State', that service conditions under their bye-laws cannot be enforced by writ, and dismissed the writ…
DismissedReferredOpenThe High Court rejected the petitioner's application for lease renewal without public auction. Citing statutory provisions and precedent, the court held that Section 148 mandates an auction for lease renewal beyond the initial term.
DisposedExplainedOpen