227 1. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD THE REGIONAL ORS. 2. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD THE REGIONAL LABOUR ORS. CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. mentioned in the heading, authorities under the Payment of Gratuity 1972 Act) Workmen, the gratuity which the respondent 1972 Act. 2. respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05 CWP BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD VERSUS THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER CWP BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD VERSUS THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRA Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate and Ms. Amita Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.13942 of 2001. Mr. Tajender Kumar Joshi, Advocate Mr. Rampal Kohle, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.7835 of 2002. None for the respondents. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present set of two petition mentioned in the heading, the challenge is to the order passed by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity 1972 Act) giving directions to the petitioner Workmen, the gratuity which the respondent Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits respondent-Workmen were governed by certain Rules IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05-05-2025 CWP-13942-2001 (O&M) BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD ........Petitioner(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) AND ........Respondent(s) CWP-7855-2002 (O&M) BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD ........Petitioner(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL) AND ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate and Ms. Amita Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in Advocate with in CWP No.7835 of 2002. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) petitions, the details of which are the challenge is to the order passed by the concerned authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as directions to the petitioner-Board to pay the respondent Workmen, the gratuity which the respondent-Workmen were entitled under Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submits that the were governed by certain Rules in respect of their ........Petitioner(s) ........Respondent(s) ........Petitioner(s) ........Respondent(s) N SINGH SETHI the details of which are concerned , 1972 (hereinafter referred to as to pay the respondent- Workmen were entitled under the that the in respect of their SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13942-2001 (O&M) and CWP-7855-2002 (O&M) -2- services rendered and they have been paid under the gratuity admissible under the governing the said Rules. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Board further submits that once, the liability under the Rules have been discharged, the payment of gratuity under the 1972 Act, could not have been ordered by the Labour Commissioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone though the records of the present set of cases with their able assistance as no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. Once, the gratuity admissible to the respondent-Workmen under the 1972 Act was more beneficial, nothing stops the said employees to claim the benefit under the 1972 Act. Nothing evident has been brought on record that an employee cannot avail more beneficial option. 6. Further, the Rules are always subservient to the Act and once, the 1972 Act grants a particular benefit, the same cannot be denied under the guise of the Rules. 7. No other argument is raised. 8. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Present set of petitions stands dismissed. 10. Copy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. 11. Any civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. 05-05-2025 Sapna Goyal (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.07 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document