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

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972

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

BETWEEN
Mr. Abhitsen Vartak …Applicant

and

SVKM International School …Opponents

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON’BLE AUTHORITY:

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

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972

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”)

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON’BLE AUTHORITY:

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