Skip to main content

The 2010 amendment in the Gratuity Act cannot be treated to be retrospective: Supreme Court

The 2010 amendment in the Gratuity Act cannot be treated to be retrospective: Supreme Court

By - Shriya Singh*

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment observed that the amended Payment of Gratuity Act, 2010 does not have a retrospective effect.  According to the amendment the upper limit of the gratuity amounts payable under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was increased from 3.5 Lakhs to 10 Lakhs.

The appeal was directed against an order issued by the High Court of Jharkhand which denied the appellant’s request to declare the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010 effective from 1.1.2007. Based on the facts of the case, the appellants were former employees of Coal India Limited. The Government of India approved the enhancement of the gratuity for the executives and non-unionized supervisors of Central sector Enterprises like the Coal India Limited where the appellants were also employed. 

Also Read - When it is a case of medical negligence, it need not be because of mens rea as intent: Supreme Court

The ceiling of the gratuity was raised to 10 Lakhs w.e.f. 1.1.2007 in terms of office memorandum of Government of India dated 26.11.2008. Therefore, the appellants were paid a sum of 10 Lakh rupees as gratuity. However, the statuary upper limit of gratuity in 2007 as per the Payment of Gratuity Act was Rs. 3.5 Lakhs. 

Under the Income tax Act, the amount of gratuity received by an employee that does not exceed the upper limit set by the Payment of Gratuity Act is free from taxation. Since the upper limit of gratuity in 2007 was Rs. 3.5 Lakhs, the appellants were required to pay TDS on the remaining amount. 

Also Read - Government accommodation is not meant for the retirees; right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation: Supreme Court

Further, after the amendment in 2010 in the Payment of Gratuity Act the upper limit was raised from Rs. 3.5 Lakhs to 10 Lakhs. With the amendment in the upper limit, the appellants sought that it takes effect retroactively from January 1, 2007, so they can claim a full tax exemption for the gratuity they received. 

Thus, the appellants challenged the date of commencement as 24.5.2010 and argued that the Gratuity Act must be made effective from 1.1.2007. The counsel for appellants also argued that since the amended Gratuity Act grants liberalized benefits, it would have a retrospective effect. They further contended that the cut-off date as 24.5.2010 has created 2 categories. First, those who reached the age of superannuation before the stated date, and second, those who reached the age of superannuation on or after 24.5.2010. 

Also Read - Explanation 3C to Section 43B(d) of Income Tax Act is clarificatory and does not purport to add a new condition retrospectively: Supreme Court

The Court observed that the gratuity paid to the appellants on the basis of office memorandum dated 26.11.2008 would fall under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act. “The Gratuity Act contemplated rupees ten lakhs as the amount of gratuity only from 24.5.2010. Such gratuity is the amount payable only once. Thus, the cut-off date cannot be said to be illegal, it being a one-time payment. Therefore, such amendment in the Gratuity Act cannot be treated to be retrospective. Therefore, the provisions of the statute cannot be said to be retrospective”, the bench observed.

Therefore, the Court concluded, “…we find that the date of commencement fixed by the Executive in the exercise of power delegated by the Amending Act cannot be treated to be retrospective as the benefit of higher gratuity is one-time available to the employees only after the commencement of the Amending Act. The benefit paid to the appellants under the office memorandum is not entitled to exemption in view of specific language of Section 10(10)(ii) of the Income Tax Act”. Accordingly, the Court held that there was no error in the order passed by the High Court.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Shriya Singh is a 1st year student pursuing B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) from National Law University, Delhi.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more