Gratuity law as a complete code bars Industrial Disputes Act claims for enforcement of gratuity rights.

The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was treated as applicable to a hydel project because section 1(3)(b) was construed broadly to cover a law in force relating to establishments, and the project was regarded as an industrial establishment under the Payment of Wages Act. Retrenchment was held to amount to termination of service other than superannuation, so gratuity was attracted under section 4(1). The Act was also described as a complete code for gratuity, with its own machinery for determination and recovery, so claims could not be pursued under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act; recourse had to be under the Gratuity Act alone.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applied to the Hydel Project as an establishment within section 1(3)(b); (ii) whether retrenchment amounted to retirement or termination attracting gratuity under section 4(1); (iii) whether a claim for gratuity could be pursued under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 instead of under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Issue (i): Whether the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applied to the Hydel Project as an establishment within section 1(3)(b).

Analysis: The expression in section 1(3)(b) was construed broadly as covering any law in force in relation to shops or establishments in a State. The Project was held to be an industrial establishment within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and that Act was treated as a law in relation to establishments. The limiting construction urged for the appellant was rejected.

Conclusion: The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applied to the Project.

Issue (ii): Whether retrenchment amounted to retirement or termination attracting gratuity under section 4(1).

Analysis: The definition of retirement in section 2(q) was treated as wide enough to include any termination of service other than superannuation. Retrenchment was held to be a termination of service, and therefore within the scope of section 4(1).

Conclusion: Retrenchment entitled the employees to gratuity under section 4(1).

Issue (iii): Whether a claim for gratuity could be pursued under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 instead of under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Analysis: The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was treated as a complete code governing creation, quantification, determination, recovery, and appeal regarding gratuity. Since the Act provided its own machinery for enforcement, recourse to another statutory route was held to be excluded.

Conclusion: The section 33-C(2) applications did not lie and the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The employees' claim for gratuity had to be pursued only under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and not under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the Labour Court's order was therefore set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment creates a complete self-contained scheme for gratuity with its own determination and recovery machinery, proceedings for enforcement of that right must be taken under that enactment and recourse to a different statutory procedure is excluded.

---