REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4095 OF 2006

P. RAJAN SANDHI                               Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                        Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

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.

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  

Mathrubhumami  Printing  and  Publishing  Company  Limited,  

(respondent No. 2 herein) which is a newspaper publishing  

company.   The appellant was charge-sheeted for making false

:1:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4095 OF 2006

allegations against the Managing Director of respondent No.  

2 and of using discourteous language and for other various  

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 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 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 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

:2:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4095 OF 2006

the impugned judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 2131 of 2002  

the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment  

of 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 :-

“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 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 –

(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 (ii)If  the  services  of  such  employee  have been terminated for any act which  constitutes an offence 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  or  loss  to, or destruction of, property of the

:3:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4095 OF 2006

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.

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 :-

“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, 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 way of disciplinary act, or

X X X

the working journalist or, in the case of his  death, his nominee or nominees or, if thee is no  nomination in force 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 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.”

:4:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4095 OF 2006

It may be seen that there is a difference between the  

provisions for denial of gratuity in the Payment of Gratuity  

Act 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 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 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. Singh's 'Principles  

of  Statutory  Interpretation',  Ninth  Edition,  2004  

pp. 133, 134.

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

:5:

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4095 OF 2006

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  

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.  

For the reasons above stated, we see no infirmity in  

the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court.  The  Appeal  is  

dismissed accordingly.  No costs.   

....................J.  (MARKANDEY KATJU)

.....................J. (T.S. THAKUR)

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 21, 2010.

:6: