P. RAJAN SANDHIversusUNION OF INDIA

                      [2010] 11 S.C.R. 584


A                        P. RAJAN SANDHI
                                   v.
                      UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4095 of 2006)
                       SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
B
        [MARKANDEY KATJU AND T. S. THAKUR, JJ.]

        SERVICE LAW:

C      WORKING    JOURNALISTS     AND     OTHER
    NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
    AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1955:

        s.5(1) - Payment of gratuity - Assistant Editor in a
  printing and publishing company - Dismissed from service
D after a disciplinary inquiry - Claim for gratuity - Held: Not
  maintainable - There is a difference between the provisions
  for denial of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and
  in the Working Journalists Act - Under the Working
  Journalists Act, gratuity can be denied if the service is
E terminated as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary act,
  as has been done in the instant case - s. 5 of the Working
  Journalists Act being a special law will prevail over s.4(6) of
  the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is a general law -
  s. 5(1 }(a)(i) of the Working Journalists Act does not require any
F a/legation of proof of any damage or loss to, or destruction
  of, property, etc. as is required under the general law, i.e. the
  Payment of Gratuity Act - All that is required under the
  Working Journalists Act is that the termination should be as
  a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, which is
G the position in the case at hand - Thus, if the service of an
  employee has been terminated by way of disciplinary action
  under the Working Journalists Act, he is not entitled to gratuity
  - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - s.4(6).

H                                584
    P. RAJAN SANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.               585


     G. P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation Ninth    A
Edition, 2004 pp. 133 and 134 - referred to.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4095 of 2006.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 29.07.2005 of the High         B
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2131 of 2002 (0).

     Ron Sastian, Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellant.

    K.V. Viswanathan, B. Ragunath, Abhishek Kaushik (for           C
Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.) Sushma Manchanda, Sonia
Malhotra, B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents.

    The following Order of the Court was delivered

                          ORDER                                    D

     Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

    This Appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the
impugned judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated
29.07.2005 passed in W.A. No. 2131 of 2002.                        E

    The facts of the case have already been set out in the
impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same
here, except wherever necessary.

     The appellant herein was an Assistant Editor in
                                                                   F
Mathrubhumami Printing and Publishing Company Limited,
(respondent No. 2 herein) which is a newspaper publishing
company. The appellant was charge-sheeted for making false
allegations against the Managing Director of respondent No.
2 and of using discourteous language and for other various         G
misconduct. An enquiry was conducted and, after giving him
opportunity of hearing, the enquiry office found him guilty. The
appellant was ultimately dismissed from service on 20.06.1988.
An industrial dispute was raised and the Industrial Tribunal
upheld the order of dismissal. The appellant challenged the        H
    586      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A   order of the Industrial Tribunal by filing a Writ Petition which was
    dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant unsuccessfully challenged
    the dismissal of the Writ Petition by filing a Writ Appeal which
    was dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant
    against the dismissal of the Writ Appeal was also dismissed
B   by this Court.

        In this round of litigation, now the question is about the
    appellant's claim for gratuity.

       The claim of the appellant for gratuity was rejected by the
C Management of respondent No. 2 against whose order the
  appellant has filed a Writ Petition which has been allowed by
  the learned single Judge of the High Court. However, by the
  impugned judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 2131 of 2002
  the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of
D the learned single Judge. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

         The learned counsel for the appellant relies on Section 4(6)
    of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) which reads
    as under:-
E         "Section 4(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
          section (1 ),-

          (a)The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been
          terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence
F         causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property
          belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent
          of the damage or loss so caused;

          (b)The gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or
          partially forfeited -
G
                 (i) If the services of such employee have been
                 terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or
                 any other act of violence on his part, or

H
                 (ii) If the services of such employee have been
    P. RAJAN SANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                  587


            terminated for any act which constitutes an offence       A
            involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence
            is committed by him in the course of his
            employment."

     The learned counsel further submits that since no damage
                                                                      8
or loss to, or destruction of, property of the employer was
alleged or proved against the appellant nor was he alleged to
have committed any riotous or disorderly conduct or any other
act of violence or any offence involving moral turpitude, his claim
for gratuity could not have been denied.
                                                                      c
     On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.
2 relies on Section 5(1 )(a)(i) of the Working Journalists and
Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 [for short 'the Working
Journalists Act']. The relevant part of Section 5 is as under :-      D

    "Section 5. Payment of gratuity.-(1) Where - .

    (a) any working journalist has been in continuous service,
    whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for
    not less than three years in any newspaper establishment,         E
    and -

    (i) his services are terminated by the employer in relation
    to that newspaper establishment for any reason
    whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by           F
    way of disciplinary act, or

    x      xx
    the working journalist or, in the case of his death, his
    nominee or nominees or, if thee is no nomination in force G
    at the time of the death of the working journalist, his family,
    as the case may be, shall, without prejudice to any benefits
    or rights accruing under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
    (14 of 1947), be paid, on such termination, retirement,
    resignation or death, by the employer in relation to that H
    588        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [201 O] 11 S.C.R.


A          establishment gratuity which shall be equivalent to fifteen
           days' average pay for every completed year of service or
           any part thereof in excess of six months."

       It may be seen that there is a difference between the
  provisions for denial of gratuity in the Payment of Gratuity Act
8
  and in the Working Journalists Act. Under the Working
  Journalists Act gratuity can be denied if the service is
  terminated as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary act,
  as has been done in the instant case. We are of the opinion
C that Section 5 of the Working Journalists Act being a special
  law will prevail over Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act
  which is a general law. Section 5 of the Working Journalists
  Act is only for working journalists, whereas the Payment of
  Gratuity Act is available to all employees who are covered by
  that Act and is not limited to working journalists. Hence, the
D Working Journalists Act is a special law, whereas the Payment
  of Gratuity Act is a general law. It is well settled that special
  law will prevail over the general law, vide G.P. Sing h's 'Principles
  of Statutory Interpretation', Ninth Edition, 2004 pp. 133, 134.

E         The special law, i.e., Section 5(1 )(a)(i) of the Working
    Journalists Act, does not require any allegation of proof of any
    damage or loss to, or destruction of, property, etc. as is
    required under the general law, i.e., the Payment of Gratuity Act.
    All that is required under the Working Journalists Act is that the
F   termination should be as a punishment inflicted by way of
    disciplinary action, which is the position in the case at hand.
    Thus, if the service of an employee has been terminated by way
    of disciplinary action under the Working Journalists Act, he is
    not entitled to gratuity.

G       For the reasons above stated, we see no infirmity in the
    impugned judgment of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed
    accordingly. No costs.

    R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.
H