4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Controlling Authority, the petitioner management filed an appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was taken on file as P.G.A.No.9 of 2007. As a condition precedent for preferring an appeal, the amount was also deposited before the Controlling Authority. The contention raised by the management before the Appellate Authority was that the grant of gratuity at the rate of 15 days was contrary to second proviso to Section 4(2) as for seasonal establishment, only 7 days wages will be made available for every completed year of service and therefore, the Controlling Authority was erroneous. The Appellate Authority had entertained the appeal and issued notice to the third respondent. Thereafter, after hearing both sides, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The authority held that the circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sugars dated 25.07.1990 and 31.07.1991 inasmuch as provides full gratuity for even seasonal worker, who had put in 20 years of service, the said circulars will apply to the case of the third respondent and he also found that he had put in 23 years of service as seasonal worker and therefore, he is eligible to get the benefit of the said circular. In such circumstances, the authority held that the restriction placed under the second proviso to Section 4(2) will not apply to the case of the workman. The contention of the management that since the third respondent is only a NMR worker, the circular will not apply, was rejected by the Appellate Authority. In fact, it is open to an employer to provide better terms of gratuity and if any such better offer is given by the employer, the same is protected in terms of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, wherein it is clearly stated that the provisions of the Act, more particularly, Section 4(1) will not affect the right of the employee to receive better terms of gratuity without any award or agreement or contract with the employer. It is not the case of the petitioner mill that these two circulars are not binding on them or that they are not accepting the circulars in respect of other workers other than NMR workers. If once it is stated that the circular holds the field, the authority was correct in holding that the circular will apply even to NMRs, who have rendered 20 years of service. Even that is accepted, then, calculation should be made on the basis of 15 days wages for every completed year of service. The authority held that the workman had put in 23 years of service and there is no dispute regarding the last drawn wages and therefore, calculated the amount as Rs.58,478/- It is challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed.
