40. WP 5151 of 2026 + 4.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5151/2026 Abdul Salam S/o Abdul Gaffar Kureshi ...Versus… The Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5152/2026 Babakar S/o Maroti Nagpure ...Versus… The Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5154/2026 Udhav S/o Ramchandra Bodhe ...Versus… The Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5155/2026 Shalikram S/o Pandurang Thakre ...Versus… The Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5140/2026 Chandrabhan S/o Konduji Ghive ...Versus… The Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. R.R. Prajapati, Advocate for petitioners 2026:BHC-NAG:8648 40. WP 5151 of 2026 + 4.odt 2 CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 07/07/2026 1. Since the controversy involved in all these petitions is identical, the same are decided by this common order. 2. The present petitions are filed in order to challenge the orders, passed by the Appellate Authority for Gratuity Claim and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur in the appeals, the details of which are as under :- Sr. No. Date of order Appeal No. 01. 27/01/2026 PG Appeal No.N/48(113)/2024-PGA 02. 11/02/2026 PG Appeal No.N/48(85)/2024-PGA 03. 23/01/2026 PG Appeal No.N/48(126)/2024-PGA 04. 18/02/2026 PG Appeal No.N/48(134)2024-PGA 05. 23/01/2026 PG Appeal No.N/48 (118)/2024-PGA 3. By the aforesaid orders in the respective appeals, the learned Appellate Authority has quashed and set aside the order dated 21/03/2024, passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chandrapur (Maharashtra) in the applications the details of which are as under :- Sr. No. Date of order Application No. 01. 21/03/2024 PG Application No.ALCH-48 (26)2023-PGA 02. 21/03/2024 PG Application No.ALCH-48 (73)2023-PGA 40. WP 5151 of 2026 + 4.odt 3 03. 21/03/2024 PG Application No.ALCH-48 (51)2023-PGA 04. 21/03/2024 PG Application No.ALCH-48 (55)2023-PGA 05. 21/03/2024 PG Application No.ALCH-48 (31)2023-PGA 4. The petitioners were employed with the Western Coal Fields Limited (WCL) as E.P. Fitter at Padmapur Sub Area; Camp Lamp Fitter at Rayatwari Sub Area; Support Mazdoor at Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area; Dumper Operator at Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area and Dumper Operator at Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area, Chandrapur area. They are superannuated from service on 31/10/2017; 31/12/2017; 28/02/2018; 31/12/2017 and 31/12/2017 respectively. Upon their superannuation, gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to them. The petitioners filed application under Section 7 (4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Payment of Gratuity Act”) before the Controlling Authority under the said Act, claiming that they were entitled to receive amount of Rs.13,79,378/-; Rs.18,31,144/-; Rs.18,84,990/-; Rs.20,44,128/- and Rs.15,90,654/- towards gratuity and that the respondent/WCL had wrongly paid gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- only on the ground that the said amount was the upper ceiling limit for payment of gratuity. The claim of the petitioners is based on notification dated 29/03/2018, issued by the Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 1 (2) of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018, by virtue of which, the ceiling limit for gratuity was enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- and on the basis of wage revision of Executives and Non-unionized Supervisors, which was brought into force from 01/01/2017, 40. WP 5151 of 2026 + 4.odt 4 by which upper limit of gratuity payable was enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/-. The Controlling Authority allowed the applications filed by the petitioners vide order dated 21/03/2024 placing reliance on the aforesaid wage revision by holding that the distinction made by the respondent/WCL between the Executives and Non-executive employees was unjustified since the Act does not make such distinction. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent/WCL preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority, which came to be allowed vide impugned orders dated 27/01/2026; 11/02/2026; 23/01/2026; 18/02/2026 and 23/01/2026. The Appellate Authority has held that the benefit of wage revision between the Executives and Non- unionized Supervisors/Employees cannot be extended to the petitioners, who admittedly do not fall within the said category of employees. As regards amendment to Payment of Gratuity Act, it is found that the amended provision has come into force w.e.f. 29/03/2018 and the petitioners/employees had superannuated from service on 31/10/2017; 31/12/2017; 28/02/2018; 31/12/2017 and 31/12/2017 respectively prior to commencement of the said Act. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the learned Appellate Authority has erred in not extending the benefit of the wage revision settlement as also the amended provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the petitioners/employees. He contends that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation, provisions whereof were 40. WP 5151 of 2026 + 4.odt 5 rightly appreciated by the learned Controlling Authority. The learned Advocate contends that the learned Appellate Authority has erred in reversing the decisions by the learned Controlling Authority. 7. The contention with respect to extending benefit of the enhanced ceiling limit under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the amended provision has come into force w.e.f. 29/03/2018 and the petitioners/employees have retired from service prior to that on 31/10/2017; 31/12/2017; 28/02/2018; 31/12/2017 and 31/12/2017. The amended provision does not have retrospective effect. The petitioners only have right to receive gratuity at the rate prevailing on the date of their superannuation. 8. As regards wage settlement, it must be stated that different wage settlements can be made between the employer and different categories of employees. The benefit of wage settlement between a particular category of employees cannot be extended to employees falling under some other category. The petitioners, who do not fall within the category of Executives and Non-unionized Supervisors, cannot claim benefit of wage settlement arrived at between the respondent/WCL and the employees falling under the said category. The learned Controlling Authority has committed a serious error in extending the benefit of wage settlement of Executives and Non-unionized Supervisors to the petitioners, who admittedly do not fall within the said category. The said 40. WP 5151 of 2026 + 4.odt 6 issue is covered against the petitioners by the judgment dated 07/04/2026, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7364/2024 and other connected petitions decided at its Nagpur Bench. 9. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Wadkar