Summary
The Supreme Court referred to a three-judge Bench the question whether pre-regularisation daily-wage service could support a gratuity claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act after retirement as a State government employee governed by pension and gratuity rules. It identified a conflict between Netram Sahu and the earlier unreported Teja Singh decision, and noted that relevant statutory exclusions and service rules had not been brought to the Court’s notice in Netram Sahu. The individual entitlement was not finally decided.
Issues
- Whether daily-wage service before regularisation may be reckoned to invoke the Payment of Gratuity Act after superannuation from a government post governed by separate gratuity rules.
Held
- The Court considered Netram Sahu’s approach inconsistent with the earlier coordinate-Bench decision in Teja Singh concerning a regularised daily-rated worker without qualifying service under the applicable rules. The earlier decision had not been addressed in Netram Sahu. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- The statutory exclusion for government-post holders governed by separate gratuity provisions and the relevant pension rules required consideration. In view of the coordinate-Bench decisions, judicial propriety required reference rather than a final determination by this Bench. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Issue referred for consideration by a larger Bench of three judges; Registry directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constitution of that Bench. Gratuity entitlement not finally adjudicated.