Airport Authority of India v. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (WP(C) Nos. 1094 of 2014 & 1095 of 2014)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 1094 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,REJEEV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT,NEW DELHI-110003.** - **2 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,** - **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695008.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 P.R. SREEKANDAN NAIR (DIED) PANKI NKRA-76,MANACAUD.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685003.** - **2 CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONERCENTRA T.C.NO.25/3534,UPPALAM ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT OFFICE OF (THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL),COCHIN,KENDRIYA SHRAMSADAN,OLIMUGHAL,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682030.** - ***4 KOMALAM S WIFE OF LATE P.R.SREEKANDAN NAIR, PANKI NKRA -76, NEELATTINKARA, MANACAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009. *(ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.02.2016 IN IA NO.1140/16** - **BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY FOR R1 & R4 SRI.K.V.GEORGE SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** - **06.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).1095/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 1095 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RAJEEV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI - 110 003.** - **2 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008. BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 SHAHUL HAMEED BARKATH, MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689 695. 2 CONTROLLING AUTHOIRTY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), T.C NO. 25/3534, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. 3 THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, OFFICE OF (THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) COCHIN, KENDRIYA SHAMSADAN, OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030. BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY FOR R1 SRI.K.V.GEORGE SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **06.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).1094/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 3 ## **JUDGMENT** **[W.P.(C.) Nos.1094/2014, 1095/2014]** **Dated this the 06[th] day of March, 2024** These writ petitions have been filed by the Airport Authority of India and one of its officers, challenging separate orders of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as well as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, directing the payment of interest on the higher amount of gratuity sanctioned to the party respondents in both these cases. The party respondents in both these cases are hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the employees’. The brief facts are as follows: 2. The employees in question were working under the Airport Authority of India. There was a Scheme for payment of gratuity in respect of the employees of the Airport Authority of India, which provided for a W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 4 maximum ceiling of Rs.3.5 lakhs. This was in tune with the ceiling limit under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Central Act). Just before the date of retirement of the employees, the provisions of the Central Act were amended, increasing the ceiling limit from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs. The regulations of the Airport Authority of India for payment of gratuity were also amended on 31.01.2012 with retrospective effect from 01.01.2007 and the maximum limit of gratuity was increased from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs, in tune with the Scheme under the Central Act. The enhanced amount of gratuity payable to the employees in question on account of the amendment of the Airport Authority of India Regulations was also paid to them. There is no dispute regarding this. 3. The employees approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, stating that since the Central Act had been amended with effect from 24.05.2010 they were entitled to payment of higher gratuity on the date of their retirement itself W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 5 and for the period from 31.05.2010 (date of retirement of both parties), till the date of payment of the enhanced amount of gratuity they were entitled to interest. This claim found favour with the Controlling Authority. An appeal filed before the Appellate Authority has also been dismissed. 4. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the instructions of Sri.S. Sujin, would contend that the employees were not entitled to any interest on the enhanced amount of gratuity payable to them. He submits that the employees in question had opted to be governed by the terms of the Scheme of the Airport Authority of India. It is submitted that the Scheme of the Airport Authority of India was amended only with effect from 31.01.2012, and the amount of enhanced gratuity payable to the employees had been paid shortly thereafter. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the employees were not entitled to claim interest on the enhanced amount of gratuity paid to them from W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 6 the date of their retirement, namely from 31.05.2010 till the date the amounts were paid to them. It is submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Beed District Central Coop.Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 514]** is squarely applicable and once the employees have opted to be governed by the Scheme of the employer, they could not thereafter claim the benefits under the Central Act, on the ground that just before the date of retirement, the Central Act had been amended to their benefit. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the employees would vehemently contend that the contention taken on behalf of the petitioners is absolutely untenable. Reference is made to the provisions of Section 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to contend that if the Scheme of the employer was less beneficial than the provisions of the Central Act, the employees were entitled to claim the benefits under the Central Act, notwithstanding W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 7 the fact that there was a Scheme framed by the employer for the payment of Gratuity. It is submitted that in the facts of these cases, the employees had retired after the amendment to the provisions of the Central Act, enhancing the ceiling limit from Rs.3.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs. It is submitted that, following the amendment of the Central Act, the employees in question were entitled to gratuity, without looking at the limit of Rs.3.5 lakhs imposed under the Scheme of the employer and therefore, the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority were right in directing the payment of interest to the employees in question from the date of their retirement till the date when the enhanced gratuity was paid. It is also submitted that the 1[st] respondent in W.P.(C.)No.1095/2014 has received an amount of Rs.66,797/- (Rupees sixty-six thousand seven hundred ninety-seven only) on account of the order passed by the Controlling Authority and the 1[st] respondent in W.P. (C.)No.1094/2014 has already received a sum of W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 8 Rs.82,994/- (Rupees eighty-two thousand nine hundred ninety-four only) on account of the order of the Controlling Authority. It is submitted that there is no further claim on account of the interest by the employees in question. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the employees in question, I am of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for with the orders passed by the Controlling Authority which were affirmed by the Appellate Authority. I am compelled to take this view, on account of the fact that the amounts directed to be paid by orders of the Controlling Authority, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority have already been paid to the employees in question. At this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to consider the legality of the orders issued by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 9 especially considering the amounts involved in these cases. Therefore, these writ petitions are closed, making it clear that this Court has not pronounced upon the merits of the contentions taken by the petitioners and making it clear that this judgment shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases. **Sd/-** **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** NB/6-3 W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1095/2014** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25/06/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 09/07/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON 16/07/2012. EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/02/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE AppellATE AUTHORITY, THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KOCHI. EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN GRATUITY APPEAL NO. 39 (03)/2013B1 EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF NUBER OF EMPLOYEES AND THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY PAID UNDER THE AMENDMENT TO THE AAI GRATUITY REGULATIONS AND THAT OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972.** W.P.(C.)NO.1094 & 1095 OF 2014 11 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1094/2014** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27-06-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED-9-7-2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 16-7-2012. EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-2-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,NAMELY,THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL)KOCHI. EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN GRATUITY APPEAL NO.39(O3)/2013-B1 EXHIBIT-P7 COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY PAID UNDER THE AMENDMENT TO THE AAI GRATUITY REGULATIONS AND THAT OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,1972.** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**