JUDGMENT : R. N. Prasad, J. - As common question of facts and law are involved in these cases, they were heard together and arc being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In all the writ applications, the management of different collieries, namely, the Management of Kargali Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited; the Management of Bokaro Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited; the Management of Kathara Central Coalfields Limited; and the Management of Dhori Area of Central Coalfields Limited respectively are the petitioners and the respondents are their employees. 2. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications have prayed for quashing the order dated 18.6.1991 contained in Annexure 16 to the writ applications passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central Hazaribagh), respondent no. 2, the controlling authority, allowing the applications filed on behalf of the respondent-employees for payment• of additional amount of gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the order dated 13.3.1992, 14.3.1992, 13.3.1992 and 12.3.1992 respectively contained in Annexure 18 to the writ applications passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the appellate authority, respondent no. 1, confirming the order of the controlling authority. 3. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent-employees were initially appointed in different collieries which were State Collieries belonged to the Government of India. The Government of India was the owner of those collieries and were managed departmentally. Actually those collieries belonged to British Railway Companies which were privately managed and were nationalised by the Government of India in the year 1930. The collieries were placed under the Ministry of Railway/Railway Board up to 31.5.1944 and thereafter under the department of Supply for some time and later under the department of Production, Government of India' up to 30.9.1956 for administration and management. Government of India established a Government company, namely, National Coal Development Corporation Limited, with effect from 1.10.1956. The State collieries and their various units were transferred to the said National Coal Development Corporation Limited with effect from 1.10.1956. Subsequently, the National Coal Development Corporation Limited was renamed as Central Coalfield Limited with effect from 1.11.1976. Government of India established a Government company, namely, National Coal Development Corporation Limited, with effect from 1.10.1956. The State collieries and their various units were transferred to the said National Coal Development Corporation Limited with effect from 1.10.1956. Subsequently, the National Coal Development Corporation Limited was renamed as Central Coalfield Limited with effect from 1.11.1976. When the transfer of the State Collieries took place to National Coal Development Corporation Limited, the respondent-employees were given option vide Annexure 1 to the writ applications as to whether they would serve the Corporation on the same tenure, the same remuneration, the same seniority, the same terms and conditions and the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matter, as would have been admissible to them and they continued to be in Government service. The respondent employees opted the option as mentioned above. The respondent-employees thereafter continued to work under the Corporation 'which was later on named as Central Coalfield Limited till their superannuation. They were paid all their post retirement benefits as per the Central Government rules. The respondent - employees after their superannuation filed an application under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', claiming therein that they are entitled to higher amount of gratuity under the provisions of the Act. 4. The stand of the petitioner before the Controlling Authority, respondent no. 2, was that as the respondent-employees were Central Government employees and had opted to be governed by the service conditions as applicable to the Central Government employees and they have been paid whatever amount was due under the said service conditions, they cannot claim any further amount of gratuity under the provisions of the Act, and also that they were not employees within the meaning of the provisions of the Section 2(e) of the Act. The wages of the respondent-employees exceeded the ceiling limit as prescribed under Section 2 (e) of the Act, as such they are not entitled to any benefit under the provisions of the Gratuity Act. 5. The Controlling Authority, respondent no. 2, after hearing the parties decided the issues, vide annexure 16 to the writ applications and held that respondent - employees arc entitled to the benefits under the provisions of the Act. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, respondent no. 5. The Controlling Authority, respondent no. 2, after hearing the parties decided the issues, vide annexure 16 to the writ applications and held that respondent - employees arc entitled to the benefits under the provisions of the Act. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, respondent no. 1, against the order of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide annexure' 18' to the writ applications. The petitioners filed these writ applications for quashing the order as contained in annexures 16' and 18' to the writ applications. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the applicability of the Act to the management of the petitioners, but according to him since the respondent employees were in service of the Central Government till 30.9.1956, they cannot be treated as 'employees' under the provisions of the Act and cannot claim the benefits under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions drew our attention to Section 2 (e) of the Act. Section 2 (e) of the Act defines 'employee', which reads as follows: "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages not exceeding two thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem or such higher amount as the Central Government may, having regard to the general level of wages, by notification, specify in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity." 8. It is apparent from. the aforesaid provisions that a person holding post under the Central Government or the State Government and being governed by any other Act or rules thereunder providing for payment of gratuity does not come within the purview of "employee" under the provisions of the Act. 9. It is apparent from. the aforesaid provisions that a person holding post under the Central Government or the State Government and being governed by any other Act or rules thereunder providing for payment of gratuity does not come within the purview of "employee" under the provisions of the Act. 9. It is true that the respondent employees were under the service of the Central Government till 30.9.1956, but after the formation of National Coal Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation", the services of the erstwhile employees were transferred to the said Corporation with effect from 1.10.1956; and the employees were given option, vide annexure' l dated 27.8.65, issued by the Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Mines and Metals), New Delhi and they exercised their option as offered. Clause 3 of annexure 1' reads as follows "If you agree to this arrangement the period of your service under the Government up to 30th September, 1956 will be given credit to and treated as continuous with service under the Corporation (including for the purpose of pension where applicable an your provident fund amount lying with the Government will be transferred to the parallel provident fund that has been established by the Corporation in respect of the Government employees so employed by the Corporation and your leave account under the Government will be transferred to the Corporation and you will be treated as having ceased to be in Central . Government service with effect from the 1st October, 1956". 10. A perusal of clause 3, as quoted above, makes it clear that the services rendered by the employees under the Central Government upto 30.9.1956 have been protected in all respect and were given credit to and treated to be in continuous service with the services under the Corporation. There is nothing in Annexure 1' to indicate that they shall be treated to be in Government service for any purpose, rather, it is manifest from the said provision that they became employees of the Corporation with effect from 1.10.1956 and the services rendered under the Central Government till 30.9.1956 have been preserved for all purposes, including for calculation of seniority, pension and gratuity under the Corporation. Thus, I am of the view that there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 11. Thus, I am of the view that there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent employees, however, submitted that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the management of the petitioners, and in support of his submission, he relied upon a decision in State of Punjab Versus Labour Court Jullunder and others (1980 (1) S. C. C. 4], in which it has been held that Payment of Gratuity Act applies to every establishment within the. meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to the establishment in a State. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that since the respondent employees exercised their option to the effect that their service condition would be the same as would have been admissible to' them had they continued to be in Government service, and after their superannuation they had been paid as per the said service conditions, the employees are not entitled to gratuity any more under the provision of the Act. 13. Learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-employees, submitted that there is no force in the Submission of the counsel for the petitioners. The option exercised by the respondent employees will not stand in their way in obtaining gratuity under the Act. The Act is a beneficial legislation and is complete Code it contains all aspect of the gratuity. The applicability and non-applicability of the provisions of the Act has been included therein. The scheme of the gratuity as envisaged under the Act, secures minimum for' the employees and respondent - employees being employee of the Corporation are entitled to gratuity under the Act. Learned counsel in support of the submissions referred to some of the provisions of the Act which are as follows: "Section 5 (1) : Power to exempt. The scheme of the gratuity as envisaged under the Act, secures minimum for' the employees and respondent - employees being employee of the Corporation are entitled to gratuity under the Act. Learned counsel in support of the submissions referred to some of the provisions of the Act which are as follows: "Section 5 (1) : Power to exempt. - (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt any establishment, factory, mine" oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act applies from the operation of the provisions of this Act, if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the employees in such establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop are in receipt or gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act." "Section 14 : Act to override other enactments, etc.- The provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act". Section 4 (5) : - "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". 14. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision of the Act it is obvious that the Act provides for exemption of an establishment from the operation of the provision of the Act, if the employer satisfies the appropriate Government that the gratuity which is paid to the employees in his establishment is not less favourable than the benefit conferred under the Act. The provisions of the Act has overriding effect over any inconsistent provisions of any enactment or any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment. The right of an employee to receive gratuity under the Act has been secured and the right to receive better terms of the gratuity under any award, agreement or contract with the employer has been preserved. It is thus obvious that the scheme of the gratuity as envisaged under the Act is beneficial and intend to give benefit to the employees. It is thus obvious that the scheme of the gratuity as envisaged under the Act is beneficial and intend to give benefit to the employees. It is true that beneficent legislation should not be permitted to travel beyond the scheme and extent of the scope of the statutes, as has been enunciated in Beldih Club Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court 11991 (1) P. L. J. R. 81]. But at the same time it should not be interpreted in a way to frustrate the scheme of the Act. In a decision in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner [1982 (2) LLJ 334] it has been held that the provisions of the Act should be construed liberally in a way so that the beneficial intention is not frustrated by any strict or narrow interpretation, rather, it should• be interpreted in a way that the benefit under the Act reaches to the maximum possible employees. 15. In a decision in the Workmen of Metro Theatre Ltd, vs. M/s Metro Theatre Ltd. (A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1685), while considering the scope of Section 4 (5) and Section 5 of the Act, it has been held that the Act is a complete Code containing detailed provisions covering all essential features of the scheme for payment of gratuity. The scheme envisaged by the enactments secures the minimum for the employees and better terms of gratuity if already existing arc not merely preserved, but better terms of gratuity can be conferred on the employees in future. 16. In a decision in Kalyan Mal Bhandari vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. [1986 (53) F. L. R. 550] a similar question was raised. The petitioner in that case was originally under the employment of the Government of Rajasthan and subsequently he joined Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on deputation. When the petitioner was sent on deputation, he was given an option and thereupon he opted for death-cum-retirement gratuity and benefit of pension of the Government of Rajasthan. He retired from the service of the Corporal ion. After his retirement, he claimed gratuity under the Act. The Corporation raised objection that the employee is not entitled to claim any amount of gratuity under the Act, as he has exercised option for Death-cum-Retirement gratuity. He retired from the service of the Corporal ion. After his retirement, he claimed gratuity under the Act. The Corporation raised objection that the employee is not entitled to claim any amount of gratuity under the Act, as he has exercised option for Death-cum-Retirement gratuity. The court considered the intent and scope of Sections 5 and 14 of the Act and held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit tinder the Act. 17. However, learned counsel for• the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dr. S. D. Shanawade vrs. The Commissioner Kolhapur Municipal Corporation 11991 (63) F. L. R. 510. The petitioner in the said case was a Medical Officer in the Health Department of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation. On retirement, the petitioner claimed for gratuity under the provisions of the Act. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the Corporation on the ground that the petitioner opted for contributory provident fund and hence not entitled to gratuity under the Act. The court held that since he has exercised option for contributory provident fund, his claim for gratuity under the Act is not maintainable. 18. It appears from the aforesaid decisions that the scheme of the Act has not been taken into consideration, as also the scope of Sections 5, 14 and Sub-section (5) of Section 4 was not considered, nor the applicability of the Act was taken into consideration. Thus, I feel myself unable to subscribe the view taken in the aforesaid decisions. 19. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, as discussed above, it appears to me that the Act is a beneficent legislation and it cannot be interpreted in the manner to frustrate the scheme of the enactment. The scheme envisaged under the Act secures the minimum for the employees. 20. The application of the Act to the management of the petitioners is not in dispute. It is not the case of the petitioners that their managements have been exempted from application of the provisions of the Act. The scheme envisaged under the Act secures the minimum for the employees. 20. The application of the Act to the management of the petitioners is not in dispute. It is not the case of the petitioners that their managements have been exempted from application of the provisions of the Act. The effect of option exercised by respondent employees, as it appears to me, is that the respondent-employees became the employees of the Corporation for all purposes and their past services under the Central Government will be treated as continuous with the service under the Corporation for all purposes and they cannot be put to any less, advantageous position to which they were entitled to under the service of the Central Government. The provisions of law which were applicable to the Corporation shall be applicable to the respondent-employees, but in no manner they shall be put to any disadvantageous position to which they would have, been entitled to under the service of the Central Government. There is nothing to indicate in option exercised (Annexure I) that any restriction has been put to the respondent-employees in obtaining gratuity under the Act, thus I am of the view that the respondent-employees are entitled to the benefits under the provisions of the Act even though they exercised option, as stated above. 21. However, learned counsel for the respondent-employees submitted that gratuity is neither alternative to the provident fund nor to the pension and it cannot be equated with the pension. In support of his submission he relied upon a decision in Katheeja Bai vs.. Superintending Engineer and ors. [1984 (3) S. S. C. 518] and in Shalimar Paints H. O. Employees Union vs. Shalimar Paints Ltd. (1981 L. I. C. 349). I do not propose to discuss the aforesaid points, as no such question was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submit that the wages of the respondent employees exceeded the ceiling limit as prescribed under Section 2 (e) of the Act and, thus they are not entitled to gratuity after the period when their wages exceeded the said limit. 23. Section 2 (e) of the Act defines 'employees' and says that 'employees' means any person employed on wages not exceeding certain amount as prescribed or notified by the 'Central Government. Initially the ceiling limit under Section 2 (c) of the Act was Rs. 23. Section 2 (e) of the Act defines 'employees' and says that 'employees' means any person employed on wages not exceeding certain amount as prescribed or notified by the 'Central Government. Initially the ceiling limit under Section 2 (c) of the Act was Rs. 1,000/- which was enhanced to Rs. 1,600/- in the year 1984 and in the year 1987 the same was enhanced to Rs. 2,500/-. Similarly Section 4 (3) of the Act prescribes the' amount of gratuity payable to an employee. Initially the amount of gratuity was fixed at Rs. 36,000/and subsequently the same was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- in the year 1987. Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act deals with the right of an employee to receive better term of gratuity under any award, agreement or contract with the employee. According to' the aforesaid provisions the right to receive better terms of gratuity already existing is not merely preserved rather better terms of grautity would be conferred on the employee in future. 24. At this, juncture learned counsel for the respondent employees submitted that there are circulars and agreements by which the ceiling limit under Section 2 (e) of the Act has been relaxed and the amount of gratuity has been enhanced. In support of his submission learned counsel referred to certain circulars and agreement of Coal Mines Authority Ltd., Annexure W to the reply is a circular of Coal Mines Authority. The Chairman in view of the National Coal Wage Agreement dated 17.12.75 decided that non-exceutive cadre employees whose wages, inclusive of their dearnes allowances exceeded the limit of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem, shall also be covered by the principle of the Act. Annexure 'G' thereof is a National Coal Wages Agreement (ii), which came into force on 11.8.1979. Under the said agreement beyond 30 years service of an employee the gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of one month wage last drawn by the employee. Annexure 'G-1' is a National Coal Wages Agreement (iii), which came into force with effect from 1.1.1983, clause 9.1.3 thereof provides that gratuity will be calculated on the basis of last pay drawn instead of current limit of Rs. 1,000/- per month prescribed under the Act. Similarly learned counsel referred to the circular of the Coal India Ltd. dated 27.7.1989, contained in Annexure ‘A’ series, by which the amount of ceiling was enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- per month prescribed under the Act. Similarly learned counsel referred to the circular of the Coal India Ltd. dated 27.7.1989, contained in Annexure ‘A’ series, by which the amount of ceiling was enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- under Section 4 (3) of the Act. According to learned counsel for the respondent-employees the embargo put under Section 2(e) and section 4(3) of the Act has been removed by the aforesaid circulars and the agreements and, thus the claim of the respondent-employees is genuine and legal. 25. Section 2(e) of the Act, no doubt, prescribed the ceiling limit of the wages. Section 4(3) of the Act prescribe the amount of gratuity. According to Section 4(5) of the Act, the employees are entitled to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the existence of the circulars and the agreements, as referred to above, rather, submitted during the course of hearing that the circulars and the agreements will not override the provision of the Act. 26. To me it appears that learned counsel over looked the provisions of Sub-section (5)' of Section 4 of Act which empowers the employees to receive better terms of gratuity under any award, agreement or contract, and thus I am of the view that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners has no force at all. Learned counsel, however, relied upon a decision in the Management of Goodyear India Ltd. vs. Shri K. G. Devassar ( AIR 1985 SC 1759 ) and Mgt. of Khas Karanpura Colliery vs. Regl. Labour Commissioner [ 1990 (1) P.L.J.R. 21 ] the latter being based on the decision of the former, wherein, while dealing with the provisions in Section 2(e) of the Act, the Supreme Court has held that a person, whose services are terminated' for any reason, mentioned in Section 4(I) of the Act, after coming into force of the Act, is entitled to payment of gratuity, if he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years and for the period during which he satisfied the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Act. 27. 27. There is no dispute on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court that an 'employee', if satisfies the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Act, will be entitled to the benefit under the Act. In the aforesaid decisions there was no issue with regard to Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act. 28. Here in these cases, there arc circular and agreements, as referred to above, available on the records. Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act makes it clear that an 'employee' is entitled to better terms of gratuity under an 'agreement, award or contract. 29. On a perusal of the aforesaid circulars and agreements, it is manifest that the ceiling limit, as has been prescribed under Section 2(e) of the Act, has been removed as per the circulars and agreements referred to above. Thus, I am of the view that the respondent-employees are entitled to the benefit under the provisions of the Act. However, it is made clear that the respondent-employees shall be entitled to gratuity under the Act on the basis of the existing law, circulars and agreements at the time of their superannuation. 30. Learned counsel for the respondent employees, however, submitted that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the, Government to its employees, rather, it is a valuable right and properties of the employees and in support of his contention, he referred to decision in Sudhir Chandra Sarkar Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ors. ( AIR 1984 SC 1064 ), State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair ( AIR 1985 SC 356 ), and Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority & ors. (AIR 1987 Patna 96 (FB) : 1986 PLJR 1182 ). I do not propose to deal with the aforesaid aspect, as no such question was raised by learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of the hearing, nor I feel that such question is involved in this case. 31. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly they arc dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. 31. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly they arc dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. B. K. Roy, J. - I fully agree with the conclusions of my brother and nothing useful to add.