Gratuity Written Arguments

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
MAY IT PLEASE THE HON’BLE AUTHORITY:
The Opponent above-named beg to submit as under:
1. With reference to the Application for Gratuity filed by the
Applicant dated 09.09.2010 (referred to hereinafter as “the said
Application”) the Opponent begs to submit Written Arguments
as under:
(a) The Opponent submits that the Government Resolution
No. SENIVE 2009/PRA.KRA.33/SEVA-4 dated
30.10.2009 (referred to herein after as “the said GR”) is
applicable to the Opponent in so far as Gratuity is
concerned. The Opponent submits that the said GR
therefore also applies to the Applicant as concerns his
Gratuity. The Opponent has filed on record the said GR
and the Applicant has admitted that the said GR is
applicable to the Opponent as well as himself.
(b) The Opponent submits that as per the said GR, an
employee is entitled to Gratuity only after completion of
ten years of continuous service.
(c) The Opponent submits that it is an admitted position
that the Applicant has not worked for ten years of
continuous service.
2
(d) The Opponent states that as per the said GR, an
employee is entitled to Gratuity as per Rule 111(2) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982
(referred to herein after as “the said Rules”). The
Opponent submits that since the Applicant is covered by
the said GR, he cannot claim coverage under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Opponents humbly
state that the Applicant therefore has no locus to invoke
the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The
Opponent states that when a special Act applies, the
General Act has no applicability on the maxim
generalibus specalia non derogant.
(e) The Opponent therefore vehemently denies that the
Applicant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.
1,49,423/- towards Gratuity from the Opponents.
(f) Without Prejudice to the above contentions, the
Opponent further submits that the claim of the Applicant
for an amount of Rs. 1,49,423/- towards Gratuity is
totally erroneous, inflated and illegal as the same seems
to be based on an amount inclusive of all allowances,
when under the Gratuity Act, only the Basic wage and
the D.A. are to be considered for calculation of Gratuity
amount.
(g) The Opponent submits that in the matter of Bhagwat
Swarup Dixit V/s State of U.P. & Anr, reported in 2014
LLN (3) 2014, page 616, the Hon’ble Allahabad High

3
Court, relying on Brahamavarta Commercial Co–op Bank
Ltd. Rampur, V/s P.O. & Ors. 2012 (10) ADJ 8;
Vikramsinh Rathi V/s Appellate Authority & Ors. Was
pleased to hold that an employee governed by a special
Act to get Gratuity as per the said Special Act & not the
Gratuity Act.
(h) The Opponent submits that in view of what has been
mentioned hereinbefore, this Hon’ble Authority may be
pleased to reject the present Application in toto.
MUMBAI
DATED:
FOR THE OPPONENTS
All. H.C., LLN (3) 2014, page 616; Bhagwat Swarup Dixit V/s State of
U.P. & Anr, relying on Brahamavarta Commercial Co–op Bank Ltd.
Rampur, V/s P.O. & Ors. 2012 (10) ADJ 8; Vikramsinh Rathi V/s
Appellate Authority & Ors. (Employee governed by a special Act to get
Gratuity as per the said Special Act & not the Gratuity Act) (APS
Labour Digest, December 2012 issue)

4
APPLICATION No. PGA/C.A./CSK/8 OF 2010
BETWEEN
Mr. Abhitsen Vartak …Applicant
and
SVKM International School …Opponents
The Opponent above-named beg to file herewith the
Government Resolution No. SENIVE 2009/PRA.KRA.33/SEVA-4
dated 30.10.2009 applicable to the Applicant. The same may kindly
be taken on record.
MUMBAI
DATED: 28.04.2014
FOR THE OPPONENTS

5
6
APPLICATION No. PGA/C.A./CSK/8 OF 2010
BETWEEN
Mr. Abhitsen Vartak …Applicant
and
SVKM International School …Opponents
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SVKM
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL (IN
SHORT “THE OPPONENT”) TO THE
APPLICATION DATED 09.09.2010
FILED BY ABHITSEN L. VARTAK (IN
SHORT “THE APPLICANT”)
The Opponent above-named beg to submit as under:
2. With reference to the Application for Gratuity filed by the
Applicant dated 09.09.2010 (referred to hereinafter as “the said
Application”) the Opponent begs to submit as under:
(i) The Opponent submits that the Government Resolution
No. SENIVE 2009/PRA.KRA.33/SEVA-4 dated
30.10.2009 (referred to herein after as “the said GR”) is
applicable to the Opponent in so far as Gratuity is
concerned, since the Opponent is an aided school. The

7
Opponent submits that the said GR therefore also
applies to the Applicant as concerns his Gratuity.
(j) The Opponent submits that as per the said GR, an
employee is entitled to Gratuity only after completion of
ten years of continuous service.
(k) The Opponent submits that it is an admitted position
that the Applicant has not worked for ten years of
continuous service.
(l) The Opponent submits that since the Applicant is
covered by the said GR, he cannot claim coverage under
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Opponents
humbly state that the Applicant therefore has no locus to
invoke the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972.
(m) The Opponents therefore vehemently deny that the
Applicant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.
1,49,423/- towards Gratuity from the Opponents.
(n) Without Prejudice to the above contentions, the
Opponent further submits that the claim of the
Applicant for an amount of Rs. 1,49,423/- towards
Gratuity is totally erroneous, inflated and illegal as the
same seems to be based on an amount inclusive of all
allowances, when under the Gratuity Act, only the Basic

8
wage and the D.A. are to be considered for calculation of
Gratuity amount.
(o) The Opponent submits that in view of what has been
mentioned hereinbefore, this Hon’ble Authority may be
pleased to reject the present Application in toto.
3. The Opponent therefore prays that for the reasons stated in
this written statement, the Hon’ble authority may be pleased to
reject the claim of the Applicant with punitive cost.
4. The Opponent craves leave to file documents in support of their
contentions as and when required.
5. The Opponent craves leave to add to, amend, to alter, to modify
and/or to rescind this written statement as and when required.
MUMBAI
DATED:
FOR THE OPPONENTS
PRINCIPAL
VERIFICATION
I, Swaminathan Gurumurthi, the Principal of the Opponent, do
hereby verify that what is stated in the foregoing paras is true to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief and I believe the same
to be true.
VERIFIED AT MUMBAI ON
THIS ____ DAY OF JUNE 2011
SWAMINATHAN GURUMURTHI
9

Gratuity Written Arguments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gratuity Written Arguments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gratuity Written Arguments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON’BLE AUTHORITY:

The Opponent above-named beg to submit as under:

1. With reference to the Application for Gratuity filed by the

Applicant dated 09.09.2010 (referred to hereinafter as “the said

Application”) the Opponent begs to submit Written Arguments

(a) The Opponent submits that the Government Resolution

No. SENIVE 2009/PRA.KRA.33/SEVA-4 dated

30.10.2009 (referred to herein after as “the said GR”) is

applicable to the Opponent in so far as Gratuity is

concerned. The Opponent submits that the said GR

therefore also applies to the Applicant as concerns his

Gratuity. The Opponent has filed on record the said GR

and the Applicant has admitted that the said GR is

applicable to the Opponent as well as himself.

(b) The Opponent submits that as per the said GR, an

employee is entitled to Gratuity only after completion of

ten years of continuous service.

(c) The Opponent submits that it is an admitted position

that the Applicant has not worked for ten years of

(d) The Opponent states that as per the said GR, an

employee is entitled to Gratuity as per Rule 111(2) of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982

(referred to herein after as “the said Rules”). The

Opponent submits that since the Applicant is covered by

the said GR, he cannot claim coverage under the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Opponents humbly

state that the Applicant therefore has no locus to invoke

the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The

Opponent states that when a special Act applies, the

General Act has no applicability on the maxim

generalibus specalia non derogant.

(e) The Opponent therefore vehemently denies that the

Applicant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.

1,49,423/- towards Gratuity from the Opponents.

(f) Without Prejudice to the above contentions, the

Opponent further submits that the claim of the Applicant

for an amount of Rs. 1,49,423/- towards Gratuity is

totally erroneous, inflated and illegal as the same seems

to be based on an amount inclusive of all allowances,

the D.A. are to be considered for calculation of Gratuity

(g) The Opponent submits that in the matter of Bhagwat

Swarup Dixit V/s State of U.P. & Anr, reported in 2014

LLN (3) 2014, page 616, the Hon’ble Allahabad High

Court, relying on Brahamavarta Commercial Co–op Bank

Ltd. Rampur, V/s P.O. & Ors. 2012 (10) ADJ 8;

Vikramsinh Rathi V/s Appellate Authority & Ors. Was

pleased to hold that an employee governed by a special

(h) The Opponent submits that in view of what has been

mentioned hereinbefore, this Hon’ble Authority may be

pleased to reject the present Application in toto.

FOR THE OPPONENTS

U.P. & Anr, relying on Brahamavarta Commercial Co–op Bank Ltd.

Appellate Authority & Ors. (Employee governed by a special Act to get

Labour Digest, December 2012 issue)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972

APPLICATION No. PGA/C.A./CSK/8 OF 2010