A GRATUITY APPEAL DECISION

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,1972 AND DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) IN JHARKHAND STATE AT DHANBAD,SHRAM BHAWAN, JAGJIWAN NAGAR, DHANBAD : 826003

Gratuity Appeal No.123/2019-A.7[Arising out of decision dated 15th July 2019 of the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chaibasa in Gratuity Application No.36 (1)/2019/ALC/CHI]

Chairman,

Jharkhand Gramin Bank,

Head Office, Rajendra Place,

5 Main Road, GPO, Ranchi : 834001??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appellant?

vrs?

Sri Pradip Kumar Sinha,s/o Awadesh Kumar Sinha,

Tungri Colony, P S : Mufassil Chaibasa,

Dist : West Singhbhum : 833201??? Respodent

APPEARANCE

?

Shri Vijay Kumar,Advocate Counsel for Appellant

Shri? M M P Sinha,Advocate Counsel for Respondent?

APPEARANCE

Shri Vijay Kumar,Advocate Counsel for Appellant

Shrinbsp;M M P Sinha,Advocate Counsel for Respondent

PRESENT :

AJAYA KUMAR SAMANTARAY,

APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,1972 &

DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),DHANBAD

DECISION DATED 27th NOVEMBER 2019

This appeal has been preferred under sub-section (7) of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 wherein the order dated 15th July 2019 of the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chaibasa in Gratuity Application No.36 (1)/2019/ALC/CHI has been assailed.In the Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant has averred the following :1.That in the instant appeal the appellant prays for setting aside the order of findings dated 15.07.19 passed in P.G. Application No. 36(1)/2019/ALC/CHI issued on 19.07.19 and received by the appellant on 24.07.2019 .2. That the appellant is the original opponent and is the Chairman of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Now Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank).3. That by Gazette Notification No. S O. 567(E) dt. 31.01.19 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India, the Vananchal Gramin Bank and Jharkhand Gramin Bank have been amalgamated and one entity Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank has been formed w.e.f. 01.04.2019 and the sponsor bank became the State Bank of India.4. That it is stated that the, original Appellant bank was established on 12th June, 2006, consequent upon amalgamation of four erstwhile Regional Rural Banks, namely, Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hazaribag Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The amalgamation took placenbsp;vide Government of India Notification no. F .No.1/4/2006 dated 1 .06.2006, and the amalgamated entity, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, continues to function under the ambit of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, an Act enacted by the Government of India.5. That S. 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, enables the authority to make Regulations to be followed.S. 30. Power to make regulations.-(1) The Board of directors of a Regional Rural Bank may, after consultation with the Sponsor Bank and the National Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act.(2) Every regulation shall, as soon as may be after it is made under this Act by the Board of directors, be forwarded to the Central Government and that Government shall cause a copy of the same to be laid before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid,nbsp;both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both houses agree that the regulations should not be made,the regulation shall thereafternbsp;have effect only innbsp;such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall benbsp;without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that .regulation. (italicised by this Authority for emphasis).Views of the Authority : The above proviso clearly shows that the regulations of the Gramin Banks are made through genuine legislative process and such regulations are laws within the meaning of Article 13 (3) of the Constitution of India.6. That in terms of S. 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 has been enacted in accordance with law and the same has been published in the Official Gazette on 13.11.10.7. That upon publication of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010, all service conditions of the officers and employees of the appellant (including the respondent no. 1) are governed by the same.nbsp;8. That Regulation 72 contained in Chapter VII of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 deals with Gratuity and same reads as under:nbsp;72. Gratuity. -nbsp;(1) An officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) or as per sub-regulation (2),nbsp;whichever is higher.nbsp;(2) Every officer or for gratuity on,nbsp;(a) retirement,(b) death,(c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank, or(d) resignation after completing 10 years of continuous service, or(e) termination of service In any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service:nbsp;Provided that in respect of an employee there shall be no forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on account of misconduct except in cases where such misconduct causes financial loss to the bank and in that case to that extent only.(3) The amount of gratuity payable to an officer or employee shall be one months pay for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum of 15 months pay:Provided that where an officer or employee has completed more than 30 years of service, he shall be eligible by way of gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of one half of a months pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years:nbsp;Provided further that in respect of an officer the gratuitynbsp;is payable based on the last pay draw:Provided also that in respect of an employee pay for thenbsp;purposes of calculation of the gratuity shall be the average of the basic pay (100%), dearness allowance and special allowance and officiating allowance payable during the 12 months preceding death, disability, retirement, resignation or termination of service, as the case may be.9. That further Regulation 2.1(m) defines pay as:nbsp;(m) Pay means basic pay drawn per month by the officer or employee in a pay-scale including stagnation increments and any part of the emoluments which may specifically be classified as pay under these regulations.10. That as is evident, the officer is entitled to gratuity as per the Regulation or the Payment of Gratuity Act, whichever is higher. However, he cannot elect to pick and choose best parts of both.nbsp;11. That the respondent no. 1 herein was an officer in Scale 4 (Chief Manager) at the time of retirement. He joined on 27.07.1981 and worked till his superannuation on 31.07.17. As such the applicant completed 36 years 16 days of service .12. That on 13.09.18, the respondent no. 1 submitted application for payment of gratuity claiming amount of Rs. 17,80,354.26/-. The amount payable as per the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 and rules thereof was only Rs. 10,65,060/- and hence the same was paid to him on 28.09.18 itself. The calculation of the same was made as under:Basic Pay Rs. 59,170/-.Personal Pay Qualification pay NILTotal Pay component Rs. 59,170/-.Number of months pay to be given : 18Amount of gratuity : 18 * Rs. 59,170/- = Rs. 10,65,060/-.13. That it is further worth to state here that after release of one increment, the gratuity has been recalculated and the difference amount of Rs. 29,700/- has also been paid to the respondent no. 1 on 07.02.19.14. That it is stated that the applicant intends to take the pay component as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by adding Basic Pay and D.A. It is worth to state here that if the applicant, intends to be governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, then as per S. 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuitynbsp;Act, 1972, the amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed Ten Lakh rupees.15. That as the Gratuity of the respondent no. 1 was higher undernbsp;the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Servicenbsp;Regulations 2010 than the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 andnbsp;hence the higher amount of gratuity was paid to the respondent no. 1.6. That after receipt of payment, the respondent no. 1 filed an application under Form N with Annexures before the respondent no. 2 signed on 24.12.18 initially praying therein to determine the amount of gratuity payable to him and further declared the total gratuity amount to be Rs. 20,00,000/- and demanded for payment of further Rs. 9,34,940/- only which was registered as P.G. Application No. 36 (1)/2019/ ALC/CHI.17. That the appellant duly appeared before the respondent no. 2 and filed its written statement and expressly brought the aforesaid facts to the knowledge of the respondent no. 2 and also brought on record the judgment passed in Gratuity Appeal No. 24/2018-A.7 dt.15.11.18 .18. That after hearing the parities, the respondent no. 2 addednbsp;basic pay and DA and took the Wages last drawn as Rs. 88,553.90 and took 18 months asnbsp;factor and held the respondent no. 1 entitled to Rs. 15,93,970/- as the gratuity amount and directed the appellant to pay further amount of Rs.4,99,210/- .19. That the appellant is depositing the awarded gratuity amount by DD No.618738 dt.21.09.2019 Drawn in favour of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, Payable at Dhanbad.20. That the appellant has not filed any appeal, review, revision against the impugned order / finding.21. That this appeal is made bona fide and In the interest of justice. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfi.ed with the order / finding dated 15.07.19 passed In P.G. Application No. 36 (1)/20 19/ ALC/CHI, the appellant begs to prefer this appeal on the following amongst other .GROUNDSnbsp;i) For that the impugned order is bad in Iaw and to the facts of the case.ii) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that the respondent no. 1 himself had accepted to be guided under the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 and hence the further claim is barred under the Doctrine of Waiver, Estoppel and Acquiescence.iii) For that the Learned Controlling Authority has erred in not considering the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 in its true letter and spiritv) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that the Regulation mandates computation of gratuity on the basis of pay which is specifically been defined and not on the basis of wage which is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act.v) For that the Learned Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 is a special enactment which has been enacted subsequently to the P. G. Act, 1972 and as per S. 32 thereof, the same has overriding effect.vi) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in invoking the provisions of both the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 to arrive at a higher amount of gratuity, which is impermissible.vii) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that either of two i.e. either the Payment of Gratuity Act or the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 was applicable and provisions of one cannot and ought not to be read into another.viii) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in redefining the aspect of Pay which has expressly been defined under Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 and the same was unambiguous and warranted no interpretation.ix) For that the Controlling Authority has erred In not considering the aspect. that since the applicant was an Officer and hence only his last pay drawn was to be takennbsp;into account and pay has been defined under Regulation 2.1 (m) to officer or employee in a pay-scale including stagnation increments and any part of the emoluments which may specifically be classified as pay under these regulations.x) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that no further emoluments have been added to the definition of pay and hence nothing can be added thereto.nbsp;xi) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in holding that the pay has been interpreted against its own regulations differently for officer and / or employee which is not the case herein and the same has been applied strictly as per the Regulations.nbsp;xii) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that it has no authority to disregard the provisions of Regulation which has statutory force and duly notified in the Official Gazette unless the same isnbsp;held illegal.nbsp;xiii) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that pay has been given specific meaning for the purposes of gratuity and hence general meaning of pay ought not to be invoked.nbsp;xiv) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that as per Regulation 72(3) 2nd Proviso, an officer is only entitled to gratuity payable based on the last pay drawn and not last wages drawn.nbsp;xv) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in not considering that the respondent no. 1 was an officer and not an employee and hence was entitled to specified amounts for the purposes of computation of pay as per thenbsp;regulation and officer is a special class and hence the regulation applicable to employee cannot be made applicable to officer.nbsp;xvi) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in relying upon the judgment passed In context of different regulations / rules which is inapplicable to the case herein as the respondent no. 1 is guided by Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010.nbsp;xvii) For that the calculation arrived by the Controlling Authority is illegal and without any basis.xviii) For that the computation of last pay drawn is without any findings and is baseless and erroneous.xix) For that the Controlling Authority has further erred in not consideringnbsp;the decision rendered by this Honble Appellate Authority in Gratuity Appeal No. 24/2018-A. 7 dt. 15.11.18 wherein in identical case, this Honble Appellate Authority has held the officer entitled to gratuity on the basis of Basic Pay (without DA) as per the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010.xx) For that the Controlling Authority has further erred in not considering its previous decisions rendered In PG Application No. 36 (381)/2018/ALC dt. 05.12.18 and PG Application No. 36 (380) /2018 /ALC dt. 05.12.18 wherein in identical case, the self same Authority has held that there was no infirmity in the action of the appellant bank in paying gratuity on the basis of Basic Pay (without DA) as per the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010.xxi) For that the Controlling Authority has further erred in not considering the decisions cited by the appellant of the Appellate Authority especially that in the case of Chairman, Pragati Krishna Grammen Bank, Bellary v. Sri B.K. Sathyanarayanrao which has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v . State of Maharashtra and others whereinnbsp;it has specifically beennbsp;held that a person cannot opt for both the terms in respect of payment of gratuity and can only be governed by one .xxii) For that the Learned Controlling Authority has erred in not considering the judgment dt. 16 July, 2014 of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of United Bank Of India vs Sri Pranab Kumar Bhuiyan amp; Ors wherein the Honble Calcutta High Court has held that the decisions of the Controlling Authority and appellate authority that the provisions of the Gratuity Act would prevail over the Regulation, does not appear to be correct and that the said authority has failed to take into consideration the special nature of the Regulation.nbsp;xxiii) For that the Controlling Authority has erred in holding the appellant liable to make payment of further amount which is illegal and bad in law.xxiv) For that the appellant is not entitled to make payment of any further amount in the matter than that already paid.xxv) For that other and further grounds shall be urged at the time of hearing.COUNTER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT :nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;In response to the contents in the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the Appellant, the Respondent has filed a statement of counter wherein it has been averred as follows :1. That, the instant appeal filed by the appellant-employer (Bank) against the order/judgement passed by the controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 amp; the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chaibasa is not maintainable either in eye of law or on facts and as such liable to be dismissed.2. That, it is submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in the ordersnbsp;impugned dated 15-07-2019 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central),Chaibasa herein Respondent No. 02 in P.G. Application No. 36(01)j2019/ALC/CHI issued on 15-07-2019. Wherebynbsp;and whereunder the Respondent No. 02 has directed the appellant employer (Bank) to pay the amount of gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,99,210.00 (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Two Hundred Ten) only within thirty days from the receipt of this order to the Respondent No.01 under intimation to him.3. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraphs (ii) to (viii) of the instant appeal by the appellant-employer (Bank) are the contents of the relevant portions of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 preferred by the appellant-employer (Bank) for its reference to this Honble Appellate Authority and as such the same are the matters of records and needs no reply/ comments.nbsp;4. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph (IX) of the appeal under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect, false and hereby denied because the Controlling Authority found the definition of Pay in the Regulations defective, fractured, contradictory and discriminatory in case of officers and employees stated hereinabove and as such the last wages drawn concept has been taken into Account and no where Pay is defined separately and specifically in the Regulations for the purpose of Gratuity. Hence, no illegality or error has been committed by the learned controlling Authority as alleged by the appellant employer (Bank) which requires necessary examination by this graciously Appellate Authority to have for his greater satisfaction to meet the ends of justices.Views of this Authority : Neither this Authority nor the Controlling Authority has any authority to declare any proviso of the Regulation to be defective, fractured, contradictory and discriminatory in case of officers and employees because a Judge or an Authority appointed / prescribed under any law cannot declare what the law ought to be, this is the work of the Legislature. The Judge or the Authority can declare what the law is, on the basis of the regulation (law) and it should not be forgotton that a regulation is a law within the meaning of Article 13 (3) of the Constitution of India.5. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph (X) of the appeal under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect and false and hereby denied because the Controlling Authority has not committed any error or illegality as alleged by the appellant - employer (Bank) in this paragraph rather the Controlling Authorities has rightly calculated as per provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and latest direction of Supreme Court on 07.05.2019.6. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph (XI) of the appeal, under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect and false and hereby denied because the amount already paid to the Respondent No. 01 towards gratuity was less and disputed one due to wrong interpretation of Pay or salary defined in the Regulations which has been differentiated with that of the employees and hence no error or illegality has been committed by the Controlling Authority as alleged in this paragraph by the appellant - employer (Bank) which requires examination/investigation by this gracious Appellate Authority in the interest of justice so that the Respondent No. 01 may not be debarred from getting his legitimate claim.to which he is entitled.7. That, with regard to the statements made m paragraph (XII) of the appeal, under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect and false and hereby denied because the Controlling Authority has never disregarded the provisions of the Regulations rather the Controlling Authority has simply pointed out its, draw back and defects only as compared to the wages drawn concept in the Act for the purpose of calculation of gratuity only as such the controlling Authority has not committed any error or illegality in an~ manner as alleged by the appellant employer (Bank) in their appeal under reference which is the subject matter of examination by this gracious Authority to have for his greater satisfaction in the interest of justice.8. That, with regard to the statements made in Paragraph (XIII) of the appeal, under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect and false and hereby denied because the Controlling Authority has rightly invoked the meaning of wages last drawn as defined in the Act because as stated hereinabove the definition of pay, salary etc in the Regulations are found to be defective, fractured and discriminatory one. Hence, no error or illegality has been committed by the Controlling Authority as alleged by the appellant - employer (Bank) in the paragraph under reference which is the subject matter of examination by this gracious Authority in the interest of justice and nothing else.9. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph (XIV) of the appeal, under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect and false and hereby denied because this fact is revealed from mere reading of para 3 amp; 4 of section 72(3) of the Regulations related to gratuity itself which reads as:-Para-3 Provided further that m respect ofnbsp;officer the gratuity is payable based on the las t pay drawn.Para-4 Provided also that in respect of an employee pay for the purpose of calculation of the gratuity shall be average of the basic pay (100%) dearness allowance and speCial allowance and officiating allowance payable during 12nbsp;months preceding death, disability, retirement or termination of a service as the case may be. In such view of the matter no error or illegality has been committed by the Iearned Controlling Authority as alleged by the appellant - employer (Bank) in their paragraph under reference which is the subject matter of examination by this gracious Authority in the interest of justice.10.That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph (XV) of the appeal under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect and false and hereby denied because there is no scope of any discrimination between any officer and employee as per provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Act shall prevail. Hence, no error or illegality has been committed by the Controlling Authority as alleged by the appellant employer (Bank) in their paragraph under reference and the same is required to be examined by the Honble Appellate Authority to meet the ends of justice.11.That with regard to the statements made in paragraph (XVI) of the appeal, under reply, it is stated that the same are the matters of records to be verified by the Honble Appellate Authority and needs no reply/comments.12.That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph (XVII amp; XVIII)of the appeal, under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect false and it is wrong to say the same, to be illegal, baseless, erroneous and hereby denied becausenbsp;the Controlling Authority has arrived at calculation of gratuity under law and as per provisions of the Act based on various earlier verdict / judgements of the Honble Supreme Court, Honble High Courts as well as of different Honble Appellate Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 too. Besides, the above the very calculation of gratuity has been made by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chaibasa basing the verdicts / judgment of the Honble Madhya Pradesh High Court, Principal Seat, Jabalpur in WA No. 1316 to 1318 (2018 dated 26.02.2019 which was also upheld by the Honble Supremenbsp;Court in SPL (C) Nos. 11113-11115/2019 dated 07.05.2019 in Madhyanchal Gramin Bank amp; Anr - Vs - All India Gramin Bank Pensioners Organistion Unit, Rewa wherein the definition of the term pay has clearly been defined that the pay includes basic pay and dearness allowance for the purpose of calculation of gratuity by the above HonbIe Courts and keeping in view of the verdicts of the court the learned Controlling Authority has rightly calculated the amount of gratuity payable to the Respondent No. 01 and accordingly issued the direction to the appellant employer (Bank) to make payment of differentialnbsp;amount of gratuity to the Respondent No. I for which he is entitled to. In such view of the matter, the controlling Authority has not committed any error or illegality as alleged by the appellant employer (Bank) rather the controlling Authority has rightly calculated the amount of gratuity payable to the respondent No. 01. Therefore, your petitioner prays this gracious Authority to kindly look into the facts as explained hereinabove and pass such order/orders as your honour deem fit and proper in the, interest of justice rejecting the baseless and frivolous plea of the appe~lant employer (Bank) so that the petitioner may not be debarred from getting his legitimate claim of gratuity as ordered for payment by the Controlling Authority in his order under reference.13.That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph (XIX, XX, XXI amp; XXII) of the appeal, under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect, false, vague and baseless and hereby denied because the controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has duly considered all the jugdements placed before him by the appellant employer (Bank) at the time of hearing of the instant case of the Respondent No. 01 for consideration for making payment of gratuity to the petitioner is an admitted facts which one could not deny. However, the controlling Authority did not find necessary to make reference thereof in the impugned order because provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act would prevail over the Regulations.14.That, the regards to the statements made in paragraph ( XXIII amp; XXIV ) of the appeal, under reply, it is stated that the same are incorrect, false and baseless and hereby denied because the controlling Authority has rightly passed orders for making payment of differential amount of gratuity payable to the Respondent No.01 is in accordance with law, which has been clarified by our Honble Supreme Court on 07.05.2019 and the provisions of the Payment ofnbsp;Gratuity Act, 1972.15.That, the Respondent No. 01 applicant reserves his right to file an additional written statements in the instant appeal filed by the appellant-employer (Bank) if any when required. It is, therefore, prayed that this gracious Authority may graciously be pleased to pass order for making payment of differential amount of gratuity to the Respondent - applicant on the facts and the circumstances of the instant case stated hereinabove in the interest of justice .APPRECIATION OF SUBMISSIONS:The Appellant says as follows:1.That an Officer is eligible to get gratuity on the basis of the Basic Pay only.2.The maximum gratuity will be restricted to 15 months’ Pay3.Beyond 30 years of service gratuity will be paid at half the monthly pay.4.On the basis of the same, his gratuity has been paid correctly.What the Respondent says being that :1.His Basic Pay, DA, PQP,Special Allowance and DA on special allowancenbsp;shouldnbsp;be taken into account for calculation of gratuity.2.That for Officers and Employees there cannot be different treatment as regards pay and allowances for calculation of gratuity. This is discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.THE ISSUES TO BE ADDRESED:ISSUE NO.1 : WHAT IS THE NATURE OF JHARKHAND GRAMIN BANK (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) SERVICVE REGULATION, 2010 ? IS IT A “LAW” WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 13 (3) (a) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ? ISSUE NO.2nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; :nbsp; WHETHER THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS GIVEN A JUST AND FAIR ORDER ? ISSUE NO.3nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; :nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; WHAT ORDERS ARE NECECSSARY TO BE PASSED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE ? Now, I proceed to answer the above issue seriatim as follows : ISSUE NO.1 : IN AFFIRMATIVE REASONS : Jharkhand Gramin Bank is a creature of the law viz Regional Rural Banks Act,1976 and Section 30 of the said Act reads as follows: 30. Power to make regulations.- 2*[(1)] The Board of directors of a Regional Rural Bank may, after consultation with the Sponsor Bank and the 3*[National Bank] and with the previous sanction of the Central Government 4*[by notification in the Official Gazette,] make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. 5*[(2) Every regulation shall, as soon as may be after it is made under this Act by the Board of directors, be forwarded to the Central Government and that Government shall cause a copy of the same to be laid before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation. THE POWER OF LAW OR RULE MAKING: nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; After the discussing the above, it is felt imperative to discuss the law making power of the Executive viz. whether Government companies or statutory bodies like Jharkhand Gramin Bank , which are agencies, instrumentalities of State or Other Authorities, can make law/rules/regulations fornbsp; governance of the institutions ? In this context, it is felt necessary to discuss Article 12 and 13 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows: Article 12 : DefinitionIn this Part, unless the context otherwise required, “the State” includes the Governmental andnbsp;Parliament of Indianbsp;and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.Article 13 : Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise required, –(a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;(b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India (highlight by the Author for emphasis) before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;For the convenience of the esteemed readers, I have reproduced both the Articles verbatim. Government Companies, Statutory or Autonomous Bodies or Registered Societies, created to discharge Governmental functions are Statenbsp;Agency or Instrumentalities of Statenbsp;or Other Authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are competent to make law (rules or regulations) within the meaning of Article 13 (3) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of India and such law (rules or regulation) would have statutory force.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The Honble Supreme Court of India, in the case ofnbsp;Chairman-cum-M D,Coal India Ltd vrs Anant Saha, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1415650, has stated that CDA Rules are statutory rules.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The above apart, a learned Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court of India , in the case of nbsp;Indra Sawhney vrs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1993 SC 477nbsp;has held as follows:Question 1(a):Whether the `provision innbsp;Article 16 (4)nbsp;must necessarily be made by the Parliament/Legislature?Constitution of India -nbsp;Article 16 (4), 12nbsp;andnbsp;13 (3) (a) - Provision innbsp;Article 16 (4) -nbsp;Power of State to make any `provision - Held (per Kania, C.J. and Venkatachalliah, Ahmadi and Jeevan Reddy, JJ., Pandian, Kuldip Singh and Sawant, JJ. concurring), it need not necessarily be made by the Parliament or any State Legislature - Govt. can introduce reservation by Executive Orders such as the impugned Official Memorandums (OMs) - Having regard to the meaning and interpretation of `State innbsp;Article 12nbsp;and of `law innbsp;Article 13 (3) (a)nbsp;local bodies, statutory corporations and other instrumentalities of the State are themselves competent to make such a provision, if so advised - Abuse of such power controlled by the requirement of the exercise to be an objective one and for only the classes satisfying the criteria - Rule of ultra vires will also apply - Per Sahai, J., such executive orders should have been laid before Parliament - Words and phrases.The Regulations made by the Bank are laidnbsp;in the Parliament and it undergoes the legislativenbsp;process. The Officers’ and Employees’ services are governed by these Regulations. When an employee does not get gratuity as he desires, how can it be told that it is inconsistent with Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 ? If an employee get an amount less than the statutorily fixed amount as a scheme of the Employer, then, it would be told that the regulations are inconsistent with the P G Act,1972 and the proviso of the Act would prevail over the rules or laws .Thus, the Service Regulations of the Appellant Bank is a “law” which is enforceable in the Court and it is not inconsistent with Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 as the regulation has not snatched away of the rights of the employees as far as gratuity is concerned.ISSUE NO.2 : IN NEGATIVEnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;REASONS : The Controlling has passed the order mainly relying on the decisions of some Controlling Authorities and Appellate Authorities and the order shows total non-application of mind. When under the Paymenet of Gratuity Act.1972, there is proviso for better terms of gratuity and the Bank has agreed to pay the higher amount between the two viz. gratuity as per scheme and gratuity under the Act, the Controlling Authority has to apply his mind and ensure that a claimant cannot be allowed to take the best of the part of the two schemes.The claimant has to elect either of the two.In this case the respondent has been paid Rs.10, 94,760/- whichnbsp;is satisfactorily higher as calculated under the P G Act,1972.Therefore, this Authority is of the firm opinion that the C A’s order is not a just and fair order which has been passed by him without application of mind.In this context, it would be in fairness and fitness of this case to refer to the relevant regulation of the Bank which reads as follows:REGULATIONnbsp;72nbsp;nbsp;Gratuity (1) An Officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act1972 ( 39 of 1972) or as per sub-regulation (2) whichever is higher.(2) Every officer or employee shall be eligible to get gratuity on –nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;(a) Retirement,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;(b) Death,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;(c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by thenbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bank,ornbsp;nbsp;(d)nbsp;Resignation after completing 10 years of continuous service, ornbsp;nbsp;(e)nbsp;termination of service on any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years ofnbsp;service :nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Provided thatnbsp;in respect of an employee there shall be no forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on accountnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Of misconduct except in cases where such misconduct except in cases where such misconduct causesnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Financial loss to the bank and in that case to that extent only.(3)nbsp;The amount of gratuity payable to an officer or employee shall be one month’s pay for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum of 15 month’s pay.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Provided that wherenbsp;an officer or employee has completed more thannbsp;30 years of service, he shall benbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;eligiblenbsp;by way of gratuitynbsp;for an additional amount at the rate of one half of a month’s pay for eachnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;completed year of service beyond 30 years.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Provided further that in respect of an officer the gratuity is payable based on the last pay draw :nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Provided also that in respect of an employee pay for the purpose of calculation of the gratuity shallnbsp;be the average of the basic pay (100%), dearness allowance and special allowance and officiatingnbsp;allowance payable during the 12 months preceding death, disability, retirement, resignation ornbsp;terminationnbsp;or (sicnbsp;nbsp;of) service as the case may be.The above proviso would show that the language used in the regulation is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity as regards calculation of gratuity for an officer .Therefore, there was no need for the CA to interpret pay, emoluments etc for the purpose of calculation of gratuity.The Appellant Bank has been sponsored by Bank of India and it would be in fairness and fitness of this case tonbsp;know the proviso pf both the organisations on payment of gratuity.GRATUITY RULES OF BANK OF INDIASERVICE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO TO GRATUITY OF JHARKHAND GRAMIN BANKRulenbsp;2 (10)‘Salary’ meansnbsp;-(i) in the case of a member being an officer, the monthly -thly basic pay and personal pay, personal allowance cd and Manager’s allowance whilst on tour of duty uty overseas, if any;(ii) in the case of a member not being an officer,the average of the basic pay and special allowance and officiating allowance, if any,Provided,however,that in the case of those members who are entitled to, and who claim, payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972, ‘salary’ shall be deemed to mean all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordancennbsp;with the terms and conditions of his employment 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, over time me wages and any other allowance.Rulenbsp;9QUANTUM OF GRATUITYSubject to the provisions of The Payment ofnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;ofnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Gratuity Act,1972, or any other law relatingnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;tonbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;payment of gratuity to any class of employees or any part thereof and also to the provisions of anynbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;industrial award or any settlement between thenbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Bank and its employees or any part thereof which provides or may provide for betternbsp;terms of payment of gratuity,-(i) The amount of gratuity which shall become duenbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;to an employee at the time referred to in Rule 8nbsp;shall be equal to an amount calculated at the rate of one month’s salary for each completed year of service subject tonbsp;nbsp;a maximum of fifteennbsp;months’ salary:Provided, however, where the employee has completed more years of service than thirty, the amount of gratuity so computed shall be increasednbsp;by an amount equal to one-half month’s salary for each completed years of service :nbsp;Provided further that where the fraction of service beyond completed years of service is six months or more, further gratuity will be paid pro rata for such fractional period.REGULATIONnbsp;72nbsp;nbsp;Gratuitynbsp;(1) An Officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act1972 ( 39 of 1972) or as per sub-regulation (2) whichever is higher.(2) Every officer or employee shall be eligible to get gratuity on –nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;(a) Retirement,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;(b) Death,nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;(c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank,ornbsp;nbsp;(d)nbsp;Resignation after completing 10 years of continuous service, ornbsp;nbsp;(e)nbsp;termination of service on any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service :nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Provided thatnbsp;in respect of an employee there shall be no forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on accountof misconduct except in cases where such misconduct except in cases where such misconduct causesfinancial loss to the bank and in that case to that extent only.(3)nbsp;The amount of gratuity payable to an officer or employee shall be one month’s pay for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum of 15 month’s pay.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Provided that wherenbsp;an officer or employee has completed more thannbsp;30 years of service, he shall benbsp;eligiblenbsp;by way of gratuitynbsp;for an additional amount at the rate of one half of a month’s pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Provided further that in respect of an officer the gratuity is payable based on the last pay draw :nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Provided also that in respect of an employee pay for the purpose of calculation of the gratuity shall be the average of the basic pay (100%), dearness allowance and special allowance and officiating allowance payable during the 12 months preceding death.disability,retirement,resignation or terminationnbsp;or (sicnbsp;nbsp;of) service as the case may be.The Sponsor Bank in consultation with the Board of Directors of Jharkhand Gramin Bank, has drafted the service Regulations for the officers and employees of Jharkhand Gramin Bank. The Gratuity Rules of Sponsoring Bank and the Regulations of the Appellant Bank governing thenbsp;payment of gratuity to the officers and employeesnbsp;nbsp;is by and large except the fact that in case of sponsor bank salary is reckoned for gratuity in respect of Officers whereas in case of the Appellant Bank it is the Basic pay. This is due to the fact that the Sponsoring Bank is an established National Bank having global presence and financially strong which is not the case in case of the Appellant Bank. An institution should have paying capacitynbsp;to pay moiré than 20 lakhs to its officers and the regulations should also be clear as regards the components to be reckoned for calculation of gratuity.The above apart, there should be equality in professionalism between the officers of the sponsoring bank and the sponsored bank viz. Jharkhand Gramin Bank’s jurisdiction/area of operation and volume of business is very limited whereas Sponsoring Banks area of operation and volume of business is wider. Therefore, the service conditions of the officers of both banks cannot be comparable. We have to see proportionate equality and distributive justice which is as follows:DISTRIBUTIVEnbsp;JUSTICE : FROM ARISTOTLE’Snbsp;POLITICS[Politics By Aristotle,1995 Edition, OUP, Chapter 12,Page 112]JUSTICE IS THE POLITICAL GOOD. IT INVOLVES EQUALITY OR DISTRIBUTION OF EQUAL AMOUNT TO THOSE WHO ARE EQUALS. BUT WHO ARE EQUALS AND BY WHAT CRITERION ARE THEY TOnbsp;BE RECKONED AS EQUALS ? MANY CRITERIA CAN BE APPLIED; BUT THE ONLY PROPER CRITERION, IN A POLITICAL SOCIETY , IS THAT OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUNCTION OF THAT SOCIETY.THOSE WHO ARE EQUAL IN THAT RESPECT SHOULD RECEIVE EQUAL AMOUNT; THOSE WHO ARE SUPERIOR OR INFERIORnbsp;SHOULD RECEIVE SUPERIOR OR INFERIOR AMOUNTS, IN PROPORTION TO THE DEGREE OF THEIR SUPERIORITY OR INFERIORITY.IF ALL ARE THUS TREATED PROPORTIONATELY TO THE CONTRIBUTION THEY MAKE, ALL ARE REALLY RECEIVING EQUAL TREATMENT; FOR THE PROPORTION BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND REWARD IS THE SAME IN EVERY CASE.THE SORT OF EQUALITY WHICH JUSTICE INVOLVES IS THE PROPORTIONATE EQUALITY AND THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE.Applying the above maxim, the Respondent cannot be compared in terms of equality to the officers of the sponsoring Bank .The Officers Sponsoring of Bank of India are versed with capital market operations, treasury and forex management, international banking, development banking, market intervention and industrial financenbsp;whereas Gramin Bank Officers are not exposed to such areas of banking.This Authority strongly feels that the CAs andnbsp;AAs under the P G Act,1972, while dealing with such should be very analytical and have a broader vision than a myopic view as has been done in various decisions submitted by the Respondent. The Authorities, while dealing with such cases, should look to the following factors :1.Whether the organisation in question can afford such huge amount ?2.The nature and size of the organization and its profitability.3.The nature of job performed by the employee and the scale of operation and size of the firm.4.Whether the job/function of the employees of the gramin bank are exactly the same as in the case of the sponsoring banks ? This is due to the fact that Rural Banks operation is confined to rural areas whereas the sponsored banks have global presence .In such a situation there is a wide variance in nature of jobs and also level of responsibility .5.The Authorities are not there to do charity at the cost of tax payers money and to get 5 minutes bravado from the worker that they are concerned about the workers.6.What is the provision of law and the proviso of regulations of the gramin banks. If according to the regulation the employees get some more amount of gratuity that is all. Better terms of gratuity does not mean onenbsp;and half times of the gratuity as provided under the law.There should benbsp;reasonability. The P G Act,1972 has not told what should the quantum of gratuity under better terms. It is the giver who should decide. In my opinion, the ideal amount isnbsp;3 to 10% more than the Act. None in this country gets such amount of huge gratuity. To my knowledge only SAIL gives Rs.20 lakhs as gratuity to its employeesnbsp;as per their Gratuity Rules, who are within thenbsp;wage bracket. Therefore, the Authoritiesnbsp;should do some empirical studies. It is not that easy or childs play to become a Quasi-judicial Authority. In Raipur, there was an ALC (C) who was giving very ultra socialistic judgments. When Employers used to tell that the Honble Supreme Court has told like this, in reply, very shamelessly he would say that we do not go by Supreme Court judgments, we go by the Act. Another Officer (Appellate Authority)nbsp;in Raipur awarded Rs.36 lakhs as gratuity to a retired General Manager of SECL though according to Coal India Ltd’s Gratuity Rules, the maximum gratuity that cannbsp;be paid to an employee is Rs.10 lakhs (in 2017).7.The spirit of beneficial legislation does not mean to grant huge amounts which may ruin the industry and to make the industry totally non-beneficial.8.There can be two rules for officers and employees as per the regulation as the regulation is a law within the meaning of article 13 (3) (a) of the Constitution of India. If an organisation makes two regulations on gratuity for officers and staff members where is the inconsistency or incongruity ? Whether any law or our Constitution has barred any law/rule making Authority to have different laws for officers and non-officers ?!!!9.The Authorities under the Act can declare what the law is, not what the law ought to be”. What the law ought to benbsp;is the work of legislature. The Authorities should not venture to usurp the power of the legislature.10.When the language is very clear in a statute of regulation or when the language is plain like that of the service regulations of Jharkhand Gramin Bank, the following methods should be resorted to :While interpreting a statute, the plain meaning of the word has to be followed, particularly when there is no ambiguity in interpreting the same,reference to some of the precedents on the subject would be in fitness of things.This view was taken by a Division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vrs. Shinder Kaur[AIR 1998 Pamp;H 184, para 6 (DB)].The learned Division Bench stated that while defining/interpreting the meaning of motor car, it was held that ‘tractor’ is not a motor car.Inthen year 1939,the Privy Council had taken the following view in the case of Pakala Narayana Swamy vrs Emperor, nbsp;‘ but in truth when the meaning of word is plain it is not the duty of the courts to busy themselves with supposed intentions’.INTERPRETATION OF PLAIN LANGUAGE : Maxwell is a celebrated writer onnbsp;Interpretation of Statutes and his famous work, ‘MAXWELL ON INTERPRETATION’ has been accepted worldwide and gained acclamation. At page 229 of the book he has stated as follows :“If the meaning of the statute is plain, the effect must be given to it Irrespective of the consequences. It is only when that the language of the statute is capable of bearing more than one construction then in selecting the true meaning, regard must be given to the consequences resulting from adoptingnbsp;the alternative construction. If the words of the statute are susceptible to only to one meaning and no alternative construction is reasonably open then only such a construction is possible which gives the general meaning of the words. Any consideration that it will result into hardship, inconvenience injustice, has to be rejected and preference is to be given to that construction”.nbsp;Following the above maxims, in my considered and well thought out views, the Authorities should not train themselves while dealing with simple service regulations like that the Appellant’s wherein thenbsp;language is very simple and unambiguous.The decisions relied upon by the Respondent are not relevant as the fact situation of this case is totally different and, therefore, are not of any help to the Respondent.On the other hand the decision, relied upon by the Appellant viz. Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., vrs. State of Maharashtra and others [ 2007 – I – LLJ – 1 = 2006 (111) FLRnbsp;710 is quite apt and befitting to the case in hand. A person has to adopt either the proviso of Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 or the Gratuity Rules/Regulations of the establishment. One cannot be allowed to avail the beneficial proviso of both the schemes.On perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal, it has been found out that the Appellant-Bank has paid Rs.10,94,760/- to the Respondent which is more than the amount of gratuity as provided under the Act. This shows that the clause better terms of gratuity has been fulfilled. It should not be forgottonnbsp;thatnbsp;“LAW HELPS THE NEEDY, NOT THE GREEDY” It is not understood as to how a Gramin Bank Officer can get such huge amount of gratuity ! The paying capacity of the organisation is most important.This Authority does not feel that a small institution like Jharkhand Gramin Bank can afford such huge amount to its retired officers in absence of any express provision in the regulations !!!Another angle of the case being that when we do not get case-laws or precedents under any labour law, we resort to the principle of pari materia. In Industrial Disputes Act,1947 , we have seen award of back wages along with re-instatement. Though this is legal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not appreciated the same looking to the financial burden on the organisation and other related factors. It would be in fairness and fitness of this case to cite some decisions as follows:APPLICATION OF MIND WHILE AWARDING RELIEF:nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The Honble Supreme Court has said that while granting any relief the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals should apply their mind. In this context it would be quite pertinent to refer to the following decisions :(i) nbsp;Hindustan Motors Ltd. vrs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Anothernbsp;[(2002) 6 SCC 41] : In this case the Honble Apexnbsp;Court noticed Raj Kumar (supra) and Hindustan Tin Works (supra) but held:As already noted, there was no application of mind to the question of back wages by the Labour Court. There was no pleading or evidence whatsoever on the aspect whether the respondent was employed elsewhere during this long interregnum. Instead of remitting the matter to the Labour Court or the High Court for fresh consideration at this distance of time, we feel that the issue relating to payment of back wages should be settled finally. On consideration of the entire matter in the light of the observations referred to supra in the matter of awarding back wages, we are of the view that in the context of the facts of this particular case including the vicissitudes of long- drawn litigation, it will serve the ends of justice if the respondent is paid 50% of the back wages till the date of reinstatement...The Court, therefore, emphasized that while granting relief application of mind on the part of the industrial court is imperative. Payment of full back wages, therefore, cannot be the natural consequence.To the same extent are the decisions of the Honble Apex Court innbsp;:(i) Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumarnbsp;[(2003) 4 SCC 579] and(ii)nbsp;M.P. State Electricity Board vrs. Jarina Bee (Smt.) [(2003) 6 SCC 141].(iii) U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. vrs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Othersnbsp;[(2005) 8 SCC 211].nbsp;(iv) S.M. Nilajkar and Others vrs. Telecom District Manager, Karnatakanbsp;[(2003) 4 SCC 27] : In this case the then Honble Chief Justice Lahoti has opined:The fact remains that there was delay, though not a fatal one, in initiating proceedings calculating the time between the date of termination and initiation of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court. The employee cannot be blamed for the delay. The learned Single Judge has denied the relief of back wages while directing the appellants to be reinstated. That appears to be a just and reasonable order(v) nbsp;Rattan Singh vrs. Union of Indianbsp;[(1997) 11 SCC 396] : In this casenbsp;the Honble Supreme Court directed payment of a consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of back wages and reinstatement having regard to the time lag between the date of termination and the date of order.(vi)nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Chopra (P.P.) [(1969) 3 SCC 653] andnbsp;(vii) Hindustan Steels Ltd. vrs. A.K. Roynbsp;[(1969) 3 SCC 513],In the above 2 cases the Apex Court held that before granting reinstatement, the court must weight all the facts and exercise discretion whether to grant reinstatement or to award compensation.The above said decisions were, however, distinguished innbsp;Mohan Lal vrs. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. [(1981) 3 SCC 225]. Desai, J. was of the opinion:17 But there is a catena of decisions which rule that where the termination is illegal especially where there is an ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the workman concerned continues to be in service with all consequential benefits. No case is made out for departure from this normally accepted approach of the courts in the field of social justice and we do not propose to depart in this case.(vii)nbsp;nbsp;Allahabad Jal Sansthan vrs. Daya Shankar Rai and Anothernbsp;[(2005) 5 SCC 124] : In this case, wherein one of the learned Judges of the present casenbsp;was a party, the Bench had taken into consideration most of the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sangal and observed:A law in absolute terms cannot be laid down as to in which cases, and under what circumstances, full back wages can be granted or denied. The Labour Court and/or Industrial Tribunal before which industrial dispute has been raised, would be entitled to grant the relief having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, several factors are required to be taken into consideration. It is not in dispute that Respondent 1 herein was appointed on an ad hoc basis; his services were terminated on the ground of a policy decision, as far back as on 24-1-1987. Respondent 1 had filed a written statement wherein he had not raised any plea that he had been sitting idle or had not obtained any other employment in the interregnum. The learned counsel for the appellant, in our opinion, is correct in submitting that a pleading to that effect in the written statement by the workman was necessary. Not only no such pleading was raised, even in his evidence, the workman did not say that he continued to remain unemployed. In the instant case, the respondent herein had been reinstated from 27-2-2001.It was further stated:16. We have referred to certain decisions of this Court to highlight that earlier in the event of an order of dismissal being set aside, reinstatement with full back wages was the usual result. But now with the passage of time, it has come to be realised that industry is being compelled to pay the workman for a period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all, for a period that was spent unproductively, while the workman is being compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed many years ago when he was dismissed. It is necessary for us to develop a pragmatic approach to problems dogging industrial relations. However, no just solution can be offered but the golden mean may be arrived at.(viii)nbsp;General Manager, Haryana Roadways vrs. Rudhan Singh [JTnbsp;2005 (6) SC 137 : (2005) 5 SCC 591], : In this case , a 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in a case where the workman had worked for a short period which was less than a year and having regard to his educational qualification, etc. denied back wages although the termination of service was held to have been made in violation ofnbsp;Section 25Fnbsp;of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating:A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors, which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another important factor, which requires to be taken into consideration is the nature of employment. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily-wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year.(ix)nbsp;A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vrs. Abdul Kareemnbsp;[(2005) 6 SCC 36] : In this case,While the Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service of the Respondent but without back wages, the Honble Supremenbsp;Court denied even the continuity of service.(x)nbsp;nbsp; M.L. Binjolkar vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh [JTnbsp;2005 (6) SC 461 : (2005) 6 SCC 224] : In this case,nbsp;referring to a large number of decisions, it has been held:7nbsp;The earlier view was that whenever there is interference with the order of termination or retirement, full back wages were the natural corollary. It has been laid down in the cases noted above that it would depend upon several factors and the Court has to weigh the pros and cons of each case and to take a pragmatic view(xi)nbsp;Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. vrs. S. Viswanathannbsp;[(2005) 3 SCC 193], quantum of back wages was confined to 50% stating:19nbsp;nbsp;It is an undisputed fact that the workman had since attained the age of superannuation and the question of reinstatement does not arise. Because of the award, the respondent workman will be entitled to his retiral benefits like gratuity, etc. and accepting the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mills that it is undergoing a financial crisis, on the facts of this case we think it appropriate that the full back wages granted by the Labour Court be reduced to 50% of the back wages(xii) nbsp;State of U.P. and Others vrs. Ram Bachan Tripathinbsp;[(2005) 6 SCC 496]: Innbsp;this case, the Honble Apex Court denied the service benefits for the period the employee remained absent.(xiii)nbsp;Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others vrs. Shyam Bihari Lal Guptanbsp;[(2005) 7 SCC 406] : In this case, it was observed:3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation, the decree is absolutely silent so far as the back wages are concerned. The decree in essence contains only a declaratory relief without any consequential payment for monetary benefits. That being so, the executing court and the High Court were not justified in granting the relief sought for. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that when the decree clearly indicated that the termination was illegal non est, as a natural corollary, the plaintiff was entitled to the back wages.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;In Talwara Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd vrs Sushil Kumar, 2007-08 SCLJ 92 : 2008 LLR 1121, while dealing with a case of award of back wages, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that while awarding back wages one has to see the condition of the industry viz. whether it can afford to pay back wages to a workman. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:“When the question arises as to how and in what manner balance should be struck, it is necessary for thenbsp;Industrial Court also to consider as to whether the industry has been sick or not. If it is found out that the industry is not in a position to bear the financial burden, an appropriate award, as a result whereof the equities between the parties can be adjusted should be passed”.Applying the said maxim, this Authority is of the opinion that the condition of Jharkhand Gramin Bank is not so strongnbsp;that it can afford to pay Rs.24 lakhs as gratuity to its retiring employees/officers.STATUS OF THE PRESENT CASE:nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Applying the maxims, as hereinbefore described, I am not inclined to dismiss the appeal of Jharkhand Gramin Bank which would drain away a huge sum of public money from the Bank. It would become a precedent and the bank will be saddled with huge expenditure towards gratuity in future also. This will expose the Bank to financial doldrum. The judgments of the CAs and AAs, as relied upon by the Respondent , suffer from illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and perversity. The concerned Authorities have travelled beyond their jurisdiction instead of confining to the proviso of the Service Regulations of the Rural Banks.RELIANCE OF RESPONDENT ON A JUDGMENT OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ON DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FILED BY MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT.nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The Respondent has strenuously argued and pressed into service a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh innbsp;W A Nos.1316 /2018, 1317 / 2018 and 1318 / 2018, Madhyanchal Gramin Bank vrsnbsp;All India Gramin Bank Pensionersnbsp;Organisation, Unit - Rewa .In this context, I respectfully refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of M.P.amp; Ors vs Ramesh Chandra Bajpainbsp;, (2009) 13 SCC 635, wherein it has been ruled as follows (Para 23) :It is now well settled principles of law that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. In Ramamohana Rao (supra), this Court, having regard to the nature of duties and functions of Physical Director, held that that post comes within the definition of teacher as contained innbsp;Section 2(n). The proposition laid down in that case should not have been automatically extended to other case like the present one, where employees are governed by different sets of rules.As far as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of M P is concerned, the said judgment has been rendered as per the fact situation obtaining in that case. It is not understood as to whether the C A and the A A in Jabalpur had analysed the cases as the present case has been analysed by this Authority. It should not be forgotton that an Hon’ble High Court renders its decision as per the factual matrix of the decisions of the lower authorities. Therefore, with great respect to the Hon’ble High Court, I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the said ratio in the State of Jharkhand.Thenbsp;Respondent has also submitted a dismissal order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 7th May 2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal stating that no case could be made out bynbsp;Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, therefore, the SLP was dismissed. It is not understood as to how the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority in Jabalpur had dealt with the gratuity cases.nbsp;The Respondent has pressed into service the decision of the Controlling Authority at Goa wherein the said Authority has stated that a Welfare Statutenbsp;should receive a liberal construction. This does not mean that the said liberal construction would drain our the money from the organization. The scheme of better terms of gratuity has not been spelt out in the Act. The better terms of gratuity is over and above the Act which is purely the discretion of the employer. The C A at Goa has failed to note the same. There is a tendency among the Authorities that whatever may be the situation employees should get more gratuity, nobody thinks about the paying capacity of the employer. It is very easy to write an ultra socialistic judgment and do charity at the cost of public money. Such authorities do not do justice, they want to show that they are pro labour and that they think of the working class. As a matter of fact, this is purely a misconception. We, labour authorities, are not pro labour but “ pro labour laws ”. We are not supposed to travel beyond the statute. We cannot say that “any regulation is illegal and/or arbitrary” when the regulation has been enacted through legislative process. We have to decide the cases in accordance with the regulations even though the regulation does not suit us or those for whom it has been made. We can declare what thenbsp;law is, not what the law ought to be. In view of the same, the dismissal of the Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been relied on by the Respondent, cannot be treated as an authority as similar fact situation were not there in the applications filed before C A and A A, Jabalpur.In view of what have been mentioned hereinbefore, I proceed to pass the following orders :ORDERS1. The Appeal succeeds and the same is allowed.2.The decision of the Controlling Authority, Chaibasa is set aside.3.The Application filed by the Respondent in Form-N before the Controlling Authority is dismissed.