30.09.2026 Item No.17 Ct. No. 30 Aloke WPA 24160 of 2026 Punjab National Bank Vs Union of India & Ors. Mr. Abhishek Banerjee Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury … for the petitioner Mr. Debapriya Gupta Mr. Sujoy Paul … for the UOI 1. Affidavit-of-service filed be taken on record. 2. The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the respondent no. 2/The Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) and the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3/The Assistant Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Controlling Authority. 3. Vide the impugned award dated 11th May, 2026 has held as follows : “Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 contains a comprehensive non obstante clause, conferring overriding effect upon the provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, rule, regulation, contract, settlement, or instrument. The legislative intent behind incorporating such a provision is to ensure that the statutory rights and entitlements conferred upon employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act are not 2 defeated, curtailed, or diluted by any inconsistent provision contained in another law or service regulation. The effect of Section 14 is that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment, whether enacted prior to or subsequent to the said Act, unless the later enactment specifically and expressly excludes the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act or contains a clear overriding provision demonstrating legislative intent to supersede it. Further, even in cases where another enactment or regulation prescribes conditions inconsistent with the Payment of Gratuity Act, such provision cannot operate to the detriment of the employee if the statutory protection available under the Gratuity Act is more beneficial. Thus, Section 14 safeguards the statutory right to gratuity and ensures that the same cannot be taken away or restricted by virtue of any contractual stipulation or service regulation unless such exclusion is expressly and unequivocally provided by law. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Authority, Regulation 46 of the PNB Officers’ Service Regulations, 1979, insofar as it prescribes a minimum qualifying service of ten years for entitlement to gratuity, cannot override or curtail the statutory entitlement available under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In view of the overriding effect of Section 14 of the Act, the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity 3 Act, 1972 shall prevail over the said Regulation to the extent of inconsistency.” 4. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent/workman joined service on the bank on 22.08.2016 and resigned on 30.07.2021 having rendered service for a period of four years eleven months eight days that is less than five years. 5. The private respondent was accordingly as per records of the bank in service is four years and 240 days and this is not disputed. 6. It is the contention of the bank, that rendering service for 240 days in a year cannot be treated as one complete year and hence the writ application. 7. It appears that the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have relied upon the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and had rightly interpreted the said provisions. More so, Section 4(1) of the Act along with Section 2(b) and 2(c) under Section 2A of the Act, wherein it has been clearly laid down as follows : “(1) an employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has for that period, been in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave (not being absence in respect of which an order [***] treating the absence as break in service has been passed in accordance with the standing order, rules or regulations 4 governing the employees of the establishment), lay off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the commencement of this Act. (2) where an employee (not being an employee employed in a seasonal establishment) is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1), for any period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer - (a) for the said period of one year, if the employee during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i)one hundred and ninety days, in the case of an employee employed below the ground in a mine or in an establishment which works for less than six days in a week; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;. 8. It thus appears that the period of one year is calculated as a complete year, if an employee has put in 240 days of service which amounts to five years of continuous service and accordingly the employee is entitled to the benefit under the Act. 5 9. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned, as the same are in accordance with law and require no interference. 10. The writ application stands disposed of. 11. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)