Jai Prakash Mishra v. Mandi Director and

Solicitor General accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4 and Sri Amit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:- I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure 3 to this writ petition) passed by respondent no.3 in P.G. Case No. 89 of 2022 (Jai Prakash Mishra Versus Mandi Director and 3 others). And order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure 9 to this writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4 in P.G Appeal Case No. 02 of 2024 (Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Kayamganj Versus Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner (payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and 4 others). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 not to release the amount of gratuity to respondent no. 5 deposited by the petitioner-Mandi Samiti on 23.01.2024 through Deamnd Draft no. 893616.

3. It is argued by Sri Lakshmi Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the orders which are under challenged in the present in the writ petition, respondent No.3/Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Kanpur & respondent No.4/Appellate Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner (Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Kanpur namely failed to examine the facts and circumstances of the case and completely misread the Government Orders and provisions of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. It is argued that the respondent Nos.3 & 4 has committed manifest error of law and fact both as the service regulations of the employee of Mandi Prishad is pending consideration before the Governor for approval.

4. On the other hand, it is argued by Sri Amit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the controversy involved in the present petition has already been came up before this Court in Writ C No.24841 of 2016 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Appellate Authority And 2 Others) filed by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and after considering all the aspect of the matter the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2016 which reads as follows:-

1. This writ petition is directed against orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, dated 9.10.2014, as well as the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground that appeal has been presented beyond the period of limitation. The order of the authority passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1972') records that the provisions of the Act of 1972 are applicable upon the petitioner institution, and since the amount payable thereunder has not been released, as such the claim of respondent employee has been allowed to the extent that the amount payable under the Act of 1972 has not been paid to him.

2. The matter was entertained and notwithstanding the rejection of petitioner's appeal, this Court had called upon the petitioner to address the Court on merits with regard to claim of respondent no.3. As per the liberty granted, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has addressed this Court with regard to issue of payment of gratuity on merits, and the same is being dealt with by this Court.

3. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that service conditions of the employees engaged by the Mandi Parishad are governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Services Regulations, 1984, which are special law for the purpose, and the payment of gratuity to all the employees governed by such regulations would be governed accordingly. According to the learned Senior Counsel, respondent no.3 is member of the cadre, upon which the provisions of regulations are attracted. Provisions with regard to payment of gratuity is contained in the regulations. Regulation 47 provides for retiral benefits. Sub-clause 4 of the Regulation 47 deals with payment of gratuity in the following manner:- "47. Retirement benefits.- (1) No pension shall be payable to a member of the Centralised Service. (2) The members of the Centralised Service shall contribute to Provident Fund in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and the regulations made thereunder. (3) The Provident Fund Accounts of the members shall be maintained in accordance with such instructions as may be issued by the Director from time to time. (4) Employees covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will be paid gratuity according to the provisions of that Act, for employees who are not covered by the said Act, payment of gratuity shall be regulated by the decisions of the Board taken from time to time within the limitation of the general direction or guidelines issued by the State Government."

4. Petitioner contends that for the purposes of payment of gratuity, the Board has already passed orders on 22nd June, 1987, which prescribes the rate payable towards gratuity. Reference has also been made to a subsequent order dated 1.11.1996. It is contended that payment of gratuity was offered to respondent no.3 in accordance with such decisions, and the same has been accepted by respondent no.3 on 27.11.2012. It is stated that after a gap of more than two years, an application has been filed claiming benefit of gratuity in terms of provisions of the Act of 1972. The application was opposed on the ground that once the claim was covered by the office orders issued by the Board of Mandi Parishad, the same would determine the entitlement of petitioner to be paid gratuity, and no further benefits in terms of provisions of the Act of 1972 are payable. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Rajan Sandhi Vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2010 (10) SC 338, as well as a judgment of this Court in Brahmawarta Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal III, U.P. Kanpur, reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 8. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Gandiv Hindi Daily Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014 (1) UPLBEC 636, and Shobhai Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014 (3) UPLBEC 2512.

5. Per contra, Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3, submits that the applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act is contemplated under the applicable service regulations, and unless it is demonstrated that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act are not attracted, the question of applicability of decisions of Board would not arise. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Gandhinagar Vs. Pranjivan H. Chavda, reported in 2010 (125) FLR 759, as well as a decision of this Court in Secry. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Appellate Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner and others, in Writ Petition No.36836 of 2011, decided on 6.8.2013.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the records.

7. It is not in dispute that service conditions of respondent no.1 are governed by the provisions of service regulations of 1984. Regulation 47(4), which is relevant for the purpose, has already been extracted above. A bare perusal of the provision goes to show that the employees covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act will be paid gratuity, according to the provisions of that Act, and it is only for such employees, who are not covered by the said Act, that the payment of gratuity shall be regulated by the decisions of the Board.

8. The moot question, therefore, which requires adjudication in the present case, is as to whether the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act would be attracted in the case of respondent no.3 or not. Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 specifies the organizations or institutions, upon which the Act itself shall apply. Clause 1(3)(b) of the Act of 1972 reads as under:- "1(3). It shall apply to- (b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months."

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner workman employed more than 10 persons, and therefore, the Act shall apply upon it. Section 2(e) of the Act defines that "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. The definition contained under Section 2(e) is exhaustive and includes any other establishment to which the Act applies but does not include any such person, who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government, and is governed by another Act or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity. Similarly, the Act defines employer under Section 2(f) in following words:- "2(f). "Employer" means, in relation to any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop:- (i) belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government or a State Government, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of employees, or where no person or authority has been so appointed, the head of the Ministry or the Department concerned, (ii) belonging to, or under the control of, any local authority, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person has been so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority. (iii) in any other case, the person, who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, and where the said affairs are entrusted to any other person, whether called a manager, or managing director or by any other name, such person;"

10. Section 5 of the Act of 1972 provides for the power with the appropriate government to exempt applicability of the Act by way of a notification upon an establishment covered under the provisions of the Act.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner initially tried to submit that respondent no.3 is not covered under the definition of employee, as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. However, learned counsel does not dispute that once the provisions of the Act applies to an establishment, only such employees would be exempted from its applicability, who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government, and the payment of gratuity wherefor is covered by any provisions of the Act or Rules providing for gratuity. It is not in dispute that petitioner establishment is a statutory authority, and is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, but it neither qualifies to be a 'Central Government' nor a 'State Government'. Once, it is not disputed that the Mandi Parishad is not a Central Government or State Government, and is merely a statutory authority, the question of any rules for gratuity framed by it would not be relevant. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that respondent no.3 is not covered within the definition of 'employee' as contained under Section 2(e) of the Act. There is further no notification relied upon by the petitioner to demonstrate that the petitioner establishment is exempted from the applicability of the Act. '

12. From the statutory scheme, it is apparent that by virtue of regulation 47(4), the employees covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act shall be paid gratuity according to that Act, and for the employees, who are not covered under the Act of 1972, the matter of gratuity shall be regulated by the orders passed by the Board. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, though, has vehemently urged that the provisions of the Act of 1972 are not attracted upon the petitioner establishment, but such argument could not be substantiated during the course of argument. Once the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act is found to be applicable upon respondent no.3, the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act does not suffer from any infirmity in the eyes of law. The authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has also recorded a finding that the provisions of Section 4 have not been complied with, and no error has been shown in the order of the authority in that regard.

13. Since the claim of petitioner has been dealt with, on merits, by this Court, and no perversity or error is shown in the orders impugned, as such no interference in the matter is called for.

14. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Rajan Sandhi (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that the dispute raised before the Apex Court was in the context of provisions of the Journalist Act, according to which gratuity was not payable in the case of a terminated employee, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that provisions of the Journalist Act being a special law for the purpose would prevail over the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a general law for the purpose. This judgment of the Apex Court has no applicability on the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the statutory regulations applicable in the case of petitioner institution categorically provides for applicability of provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as well as entitlement to receive gratuity, accordingly. So far as the judgment of this Court in Brahmawarta Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanpur (supra) is concerned, the said decision dealt with the applicability of the industrial law in the context of a Co-operative Society, which has also no applicability in the facts of the present case. So far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shobhai Ram (supra) is concerned, the said decision also dealt with for payment of gratuity to an employee of the Co-operative Society, which again has no applicability in the facts of the present case.

15. No other argument is pressed. No illegality is shown in the order of the authority granting payment of gratuity. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).34308 of 2016 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the same vide its judgement and order dated

06.02.2017. In both the orders which are under challenge, there is sufficient reference of the order passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any arguments has been raised by learned counsel for the parties that why the law laid down by this Court in Writ C No.24841 of 2016 (supra) which had already been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court will not apply.

7. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the present petition filed by the petitioner/Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Farrukhabad is not only a frivolous petition but the same has also been filed on a wrong legal advice. Once the law has been settled up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was no reason or occasion to the petitioner to file such frivolous petition before this Court.

8. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is dismissed imposing exemplary cost.

9. At this stage, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present petition as not pressed.

10. Taking a lenient view, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Solicitor General accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4 and Sri Amit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:- I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 15.07.2023 (Annexure 3 to this writ petition) passed by respondent no.3 in P.G. Case No. 89 of 2022 (Jai Prakash Mishra Versus Mandi Director and 3 others). And order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure 9 to this writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4 in P.G Appeal Case No. 02 of 2024 (Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Kayamganj Versus Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner (payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and 4 others). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 4 not to release the amount of gratuity to respondent no. 5 deposited by the petitioner-Mandi Samiti on 23.01.2024 through Deamnd Draft no. 893616.

3. It is argued by Sri Lakshmi Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the orders which are under challenged in the present in the writ petition, respondent No.3/Controlling Authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Kanpur & respondent No.4/Appellate Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner (Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Kanpur namely failed to examine the facts and circumstances of the case and completely misread the Government Orders and provisions of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. It is argued that the respondent Nos.3 & 4 has committed manifest error of law and fact both as the service regulations of the employee of Mandi Prishad is pending consideration before the Governor for approval.

4. On the other hand, it is argued by Sri Amit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that the controversy involved in the present petition has already been came up before this Court in Writ C No.24841 of 2016 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Appellate Authority And 2 Others) filed by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and after considering all the aspect of the matter the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2016 which reads as follows:-

1. This writ petition is directed against orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, dated 9.10.2014, as well as the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground that appeal has been presented beyond the period of limitation. The order of the authority passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1972') records that the provisions of the Act of 1972 are applicable upon the petitioner institution, and since the amount payable thereunder has not been released, as such the claim of respondent employee has been allowed to the extent that the amount payable under the Act of 1972 has not been paid to him.

2. The matter was entertained and notwithstanding the rejection of petitioner's appeal, this Court had called upon the petitioner to address the Court on merits with regard to claim of respondent no.3. As per the liberty granted, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has addressed this Court with regard to issue of payment of gratuity on merits, and the same is being dealt with by this Court.

3. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that service conditions of the employees engaged by the Mandi Parishad are governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Services Regulations, 1984, which are special law for the purpose, and the payment of gratuity to all the employees governed by such regulations would be governed accordingly. According to the learned Senior Counsel, respondent no.3 is member of the cadre, upon which the provisions of regulations are attracted. Provisions with regard to payment of gratuity is contained in the regulations. Regulation 47 provides for retiral benefits. Sub-clause 4 of the Regulation 47 deals with payment of gratuity in the following manner:- "47. Retirement benefits.- (1) No pension shall be payable to a member of the Centralised Service. (2) The members of the Centralised Service shall contribute to Provident Fund in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act and the regulations made thereunder. (3) The Provident Fund Accounts of the members shall be maintained in accordance with such instructions as may be issued by the Director from time to time. (4) Employees covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will be paid gratuity according to the provisions of that Act, for employees who are not covered by the said Act, payment of gratuity shall be regulated by the decisions of the Board taken from time to time within the limitation of the general direction or guidelines issued by the State Government."

4. Petitioner contends that for the purposes of payment of gratuity, the Board has already passed orders on 22nd June, 1987, which prescribes the rate payable towards gratuity. Reference has also been made to a subsequent order dated 1.11.1996. It is contended that payment of gratuity was offered to respondent no.3 in accordance with such decisions, and the same has been accepted by respondent no.3 on 27.11.2012. It is stated that after a gap of more than two years, an application has been filed claiming benefit of gratuity in terms of provisions of the Act of 1972. The application was opposed on the ground that once the claim was covered by the office orders issued by the Board of Mandi Parishad, the same would determine the entitlement of petitioner to be paid gratuity, and no further benefits in terms of provisions of the Act of 1972 are payable. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Rajan Sandhi Vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2010 (10) SC 338, as well as a judgment of this Court in Brahmawarta Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal III, U.P. Kanpur, reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 8. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Gandiv Hindi Daily Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014 (1) UPLBEC 636, and Shobhai Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014 (3) UPLBEC 2512.

5. Per contra, Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3, submits that the applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act is contemplated under the applicable service regulations, and unless it is demonstrated that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act are not attracted, the question of applicability of decisions of Board would not arise. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Gandhinagar Vs. Pranjivan H. Chavda, reported in 2010 (125) FLR 759, as well as a decision of this Court in Secry. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Appellate Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner and others, in Writ Petition No.36836 of 2011, decided on 6.8.2013.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the records.

7. It is not in dispute that service conditions of respondent no.1 are governed by the provisions of service regulations of 1984. Regulation 47(4), which is relevant for the purpose, has already been extracted above. A bare perusal of the provision goes to show that the employees covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act will be paid gratuity, according to the provisions of that Act, and it is only for such employees, who are not covered by the said Act, that the payment of gratuity shall be regulated by the decisions of the Board.

8. The moot question, therefore, which requires adjudication in the present case, is as to whether the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act would be attracted in the case of respondent no.3 or not. Section 1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 specifies the organizations or institutions, upon which the Act itself shall apply. Clause 1(3)(b) of the Act of 1972 reads as under:- "1(3). It shall apply to- (b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months."

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner workman employed more than 10 persons, and therefore, the Act shall apply upon it. Section 2(e) of the Act defines that "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. The definition contained under Section 2(e) is exhaustive and includes any other establishment to which the Act applies but does not include any such person, who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government, and is governed by another Act or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity. Similarly, the Act defines employer under Section 2(f) in following words:- "2(f). "Employer" means, in relation to any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop:- (i) belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government or a State Government, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of employees, or where no person or authority has been so appointed, the head of the Ministry or the Department concerned, (ii) belonging to, or under the control of, any local authority, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person has been so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority. (iii) in any other case, the person, who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, and where the said affairs are entrusted to any other person, whether called a manager, or managing director or by any other name, such person;"

10. Section 5 of the Act of 1972 provides for the power with the appropriate government to exempt applicability of the Act by way of a notification upon an establishment covered under the provisions of the Act.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner initially tried to submit that respondent no.3 is not covered under the definition of employee, as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. However, learned counsel does not dispute that once the provisions of the Act applies to an establishment, only such employees would be exempted from its applicability, who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government, and the payment of gratuity wherefor is covered by any provisions of the Act or Rules providing for gratuity. It is not in dispute that petitioner establishment is a statutory authority, and is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, but it neither qualifies to be a 'Central Government' nor a 'State Government'. Once, it is not disputed that the Mandi Parishad is not a Central Government or State Government, and is merely a statutory authority, the question of any rules for gratuity framed by it would not be relevant. In such circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that respondent no.3 is not covered within the definition of 'employee' as contained under Section 2(e) of the Act. There is further no notification relied upon by the petitioner to demonstrate that the petitioner establishment is exempted from the applicability of the Act. '

12. From the statutory scheme, it is apparent that by virtue of regulation 47(4), the employees covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act shall be paid gratuity according to that Act, and for the employees, who are not covered under the Act of 1972, the matter of gratuity shall be regulated by the orders passed by the Board. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, though, has vehemently urged that the provisions of the Act of 1972 are not attracted upon the petitioner establishment, but such argument could not be substantiated during the course of argument. Once the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act is found to be applicable upon respondent no.3, the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act does not suffer from any infirmity in the eyes of law. The authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has also recorded a finding that the provisions of Section 4 have not been complied with, and no error has been shown in the order of the authority in that regard.

13. Since the claim of petitioner has been dealt with, on merits, by this Court, and no perversity or error is shown in the orders impugned, as such no interference in the matter is called for.

14. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Rajan Sandhi (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that the dispute raised before the Apex Court was in the context of provisions of the Journalist Act, according to which gratuity was not payable in the case of a terminated employee, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that provisions of the Journalist Act being a special law for the purpose would prevail over the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a general law for the purpose. This judgment of the Apex Court has no applicability on the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the statutory regulations applicable in the case of petitioner institution categorically provides for applicability of provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as well as entitlement to receive gratuity, accordingly. So far as the judgment of this Court in Brahmawarta Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanpur (supra) is concerned, the said decision dealt with the applicability of the industrial law in the context of a Co-operative Society, which has also no applicability in the facts of the present case. So far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shobhai Ram (supra) is concerned, the said decision also dealt with for payment of gratuity to an employee of the Co-operative Society, which again has no applicability in the facts of the present case.

15. No other argument is pressed. No illegality is shown in the order of the authority granting payment of gratuity. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).34308 of 2016 (Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the same vide its judgement and order dated

06.02.2017. In both the orders which are under challenge, there is sufficient reference of the order passed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition nor any arguments has been raised by learned counsel for the parties that why the law laid down by this Court in Writ C No.24841 of 2016 (supra) which had already been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court will not apply.

7. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the present petition filed by the petitioner/Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Farrukhabad is not only a frivolous petition but the same has also been filed on a wrong legal advice. Once the law has been settled up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was no reason or occasion to the petitioner to file such frivolous petition before this Court.

8. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is dismissed imposing exemplary cost.

9. At this stage, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present petition as not pressed.

10. Taking a lenient view, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad