JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. – The petitioner herein, Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.C.C.L.’) is a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Indian Companies Act. The instant writ petition has been filed by B.C.C.L. for qua5hing the order passed by the Controlling Authority (Respondent no. 2 herein) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) dated 15.9.1980. It has also challenged the order passed in appeal by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Respondent no. 1 herein) dated 21.5.1981, whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the B.C.C.L. against the award of the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority had, on an application made to it by respondent no. 3 herein, awarded a sum of Rs.7,945.66 paise by way of gratuity which was found payable to respondent no. 3 in terms of the agreement known as the National Coal Wage Agreement II dated 11.6.1979. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Respondent no. 3 was employed as Mining Sardar in Kooridih Colliery, which colliery was nationalised and ultimately vested in the petitioner, B.C.C.L, under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The respondent no. 3 whose services were continued even after vesting, was superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.1.1973, Altogether he had to his credit 43 years of continuous service in the colliery. On 29.1.1980. B.C.C.L. paid to respondent no. 3 a sum of Rs. 17,069.60 paise which was payable to him by way of gratuity under the Act. The petitioner was not satisfied. since he claimed that apart from gratuity payable to him under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act, which was a maximum of twenty months wages, he was also entitled to gratuity in terms of the agreement known as the National Coal Wage Agreement II under which for every completed year of service after thirty years of service, a workman was entitled to one month’s wages by way of gratuity. The B.C.C.L. did not accede to the request of respondent no. 3 for payment of this additional sum by way of gratuity, which according to respondent no. 3 was a sum of Rs. 8,794.84 paise. The respondent no. The B.C.C.L. did not accede to the request of respondent no. 3 for payment of this additional sum by way of gratuity, which according to respondent no. 3 was a sum of Rs. 8,794.84 paise. The respondent no. 3 thereafter filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Act claiming this amount, since the same had remained unpaid. The Controlling Authority by its order dated 15.9.1980 awarded a sum of Rs. 7,945.66 paise by way of gratuity payable in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement II over and above the gratuity payable under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act. As stated earlier this award was challenged by the B.C.C.L. in appeal but the appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.5.1981 by respondent no. 1, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has urged two contentions before me. Firstly he contends that an, employee is not entitled to receive any amount of gratuity which exceeds twenty months wages. Secondly, he submitted that even if an employee is entitled to any amount by way of gratuity under any agreement or award or contract, he could not realise the said amount by taking recourse to a proceeding under the Act. He has to seek his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The fact that the employee concerned was entitled to receive additional amount by way of gratuity in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement II, was not disputed before me. 4. The first submission urged on behalf of the petitioner overlooks the scheme of section 4 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 4 provides that gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years. Sub-section (2) provides that for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days’ wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. Sub-section (3) provides that the amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed twenty months wages. It is no doubt true that in the absence of any other provision in the Act, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner would be correct. Sub-section (3) provides that the amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed twenty months wages. It is no doubt true that in the absence of any other provision in the Act, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner would be correct. However, sub-section (5) of section 4 itself provides as follows : “Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer.” 5. It is thus apparent that the Act itself provides minimum rate at which gratuity has to be paid by an employer compulsorily under the Act. However, that does not prevent an employee to agree to better terms of gratuity, meaning thereby terms better than those provided under the Act. The gratuity payable as per such better terms agreed to under an award, agreement or contract may also be awarded under the Act. Thus, sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Act leaves no room for doubt that an employee is entitled to receive higher gratuity if it is provided under any award or agreement or contract which is binding on the employer and the employee. I, therefore, hold that in view of the provision of sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Act, it is not possible to contend that in no event can an employee get by way of gratuity an amount more than twenty months wages as provided under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act. If there be an award or agreement or contract, which provide for better terms of gratuity which entitled the employee to receive a higher sum by way of gratuity than provided under the Act, an employee would be entitled to such higher sum. Sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Act is clear and unambiguous and does not admit of any other interpretation. The first contention of the petitioner must, therefore, be rejected. 6. Coming to the second contention of the petitioner that even if a higher amount of gratuity was payable to respondent no. 3, be could not claim the said amount in a proceeding under the Act, the said question, in so far this court is concerned, is not res integra. The first contention of the petitioner must, therefore, be rejected. 6. Coming to the second contention of the petitioner that even if a higher amount of gratuity was payable to respondent no. 3, be could not claim the said amount in a proceeding under the Act, the said question, in so far this court is concerned, is not res integra. I am bound by a binding precedent of this Court reported in the case of the Patna Electricity Supply Company Ltd. v. Panchkauri Ram and another (1979 B.B.C.J. 805). In view of two earlier decisions of this Court, the Division Bench came to the finding that even gratuity payable under an agreement was gratuity under the Act and hence the Controlling Authority under the Act had jurisdiction to make an award in respect of any amount payable under such agreement. This Court observed: “It was con tended that sums due or sums payable as gratuity only under the Act fell within the purview and not sums payable as gratuity under some scheme or Wage Board Award or agreement.” xx xx xx “It is manifest that the controlling authority can make award only in respect of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Question which falls for determination is whether the sum due to respondent no. 1 under the Company’s scheme was gratuity under this Act. In my view, sums due under a private scheme of gratuity would also be gratuity payable under this Act. This effect must flow from the content of Section 4(5) of the Act which lays down that “nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer.” Section 5 or the Act empowers the State Government to exempt any establishment, factory, mine etc. from the operation of this Act, if the employees of such establishment, factory, mine etc. are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. It is thus obvious, that although sums payable as gratuity to employees under scheme, agreements or contracts favourable to the employees have found statutory recognition prior to the enactment of this Act, there was no law in regard to payment of gratuity. Payment, therefore, was governed by a contract, agreement or award. It is thus obvious, that although sums payable as gratuity to employees under scheme, agreements or contracts favourable to the employees have found statutory recognition prior to the enactment of this Act, there was no law in regard to payment of gratuity. Payment, therefore, was governed by a contract, agreement or award. In order to make a comprehensive law in regard to gratuity, the Payment of Gratuity Act was brought into being. This Act covers all aspects of gratuity and compensation the whole law in regard to payment of gratuity. Thus the full effect of section 4(1), 4(5) and sections 5 of the Act must be the gratuity under any award or agreement or contract also fell within the purview of the Act. If this was not the intention, there was no point in enacting section 4(5). If section 4(5) had not found place in Statute Book, the Act could not have nullified the impact of any award, agreement or contract which provided better terms of gratuity than under the Act.” It has been pointed out by the Respondents that the High Court of Calcutta has also taken a similar view in the case of Eastern Coalfield Limited [1982 L.I.C. (NOC) 75]. 7. In fairness to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it must be mentioned that he relied upon a decision rendered by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dinkar Shankar Pawar (1986 F.L.R. Vol. 53 Page 600), wherein certain observations have been made by the learned Judge which support the contention of the petitioner, However, apart from the fact that I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court recorded a finding that the petitioner in that case was not entitled to any gratuity at all under section 4 of the Act. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner was entitled to receive gratuity under the Act and the Controlling Authority therefore, clearly had jurisdiction to entertain an application for payment of gratuity. Once it is held that such an application was maintainable, it would certainly be open to the Controlling Authority to determine the quantum of gratuity payable to an employee, either in terms of the Act or in terms of an agreement or award or contract binding upon the employer and the employee. Once it is held that such an application was maintainable, it would certainly be open to the Controlling Authority to determine the quantum of gratuity payable to an employee, either in terms of the Act or in terms of an agreement or award or contract binding upon the employer and the employee. I may, however, mention that the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills [ 1981 (1) LLJ 308 ] in support of this proposition. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not refer to the said decision of the Supreme Court in his sub-missions. However, I have carefully considered the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, and with great respect to the learned Judie, I am unable to hold that the decision of the Supreme Court supports the second contention of the petitioner herein. The second submission of the petitioner's counsel must also, therefore, be rejected. 8. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs.500/-. Application dismissed.