R.N. PRASAD, J. As the common question of facti and law are involved in these cases, they were heard together and are 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 Coal Fields Limited the Management of Bokaro Colliery of Central Coal Fields Limited; the Management of kathra. Area and Jagarnathdih Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited, and the management of Dhori Area of Central Coal Fields Limited respectively are the petitioners and the respondents are their employees. 2. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ applications has 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. l, 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 belong 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 Coal Field Limited with effect from 1.11.1975. 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. Subsequently, the National Coal Development Corporation Limited was renamed as Central Coal Field Limited with effect from 1.11.1975. 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 had they continued to be in Government Service. The respondent-employees opted the option as mentioned above. The respondent employees thereafter continued to work and the Corporation which was later on named as Central Coal Field 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 the Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafer 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 bad 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 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 are 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 appellant authority after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide annexure 18 to the writ applications. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal before the appellate authority respondent no. 1 against the order of the Controlling authority and the appellant 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 can• not claim the benefits under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions drew out attention to section 2 (e) of the Act. Section 2 (e) of the Act defines 'employee, which reads as follows ;- "employee" means any persons (other than an apprentice) employed on wages 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 "killed, semi skilled, or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied and whether on 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 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. 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 service 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 exercise their option as offered. Clauses 3 of annexure 1' reads as follows :- "If you agree to this arrangement the t 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 and 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 services 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. 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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 :. 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 of gratuity or pensionery 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 notwithstanding any thing inconsistent there with contained in any enactment other then 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 light of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer". 14. A perusal of the aforesaid provision of the Ace 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 innunciated in Beldih Club Vs. The Presiding Officer Lab. our Court [1991 (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 Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner [1983 (2) L.L.J. 324 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 are 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 (52) F.I.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 Corporation. 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 Corporation. 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 under the Act. 17. However, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Dr. S.D. Bhanawade Vs. The Commissioner Kolhapur Municipal Corporation [1991 (63) F.I.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 decision that the scheme of the Act has not been taken into consideration, as also the scope of Section 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 at 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 1) 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 provision of the Act even brought 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 can not be equated with the Pension. In support of his submission be relied upon a decision in Katheeya Bairs Supt. Engineer & ors 1984 (3) SCC 518 and in Shalimars Paints H.O. Employee Union Vs. Shalimar Paints Ltd. (1981 L.I.C. 340). 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 submitted 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 "employee' and says that 'employee 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 (e) of the Act was Rs. 23. Section 2 (e) of the Act defines "employee' and says that 'employee 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 (e) 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 employer. According to the aforesaid provisions the right to receive better terms of gratuity already existing is not merely preserved rather better terms of gratuity 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 agreements of Coal Mines Authority Ltd., Annexure 'A' 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-executive cadre employees whose wages, inclusive of their dearness allowance exceeded the limit of Rs. 1,000/- per mensem, shall also be covered by the principles 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 wages last drawn by the employee. Annexure 'G-l' 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 50,000/- to 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 fop 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. 28. Section 2 (e) of the Act, no doubt prescribes the ceiling limit of the wages. Section 4 (3) of the Act prescribes 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 employer. 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 agreement will not override the provisions of the Act. 29. To me it appears that learned counsel over looked the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Act which empower 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 F.C. Devessar (A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1759) and Mfg of Khas Karanpura Colliery Vs. R.C.F. Labour Commissioners (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 (1) of the Act, after ,coming into force of the Act. is entitled to payment of gratuity, if he has rendered continuous service for not Jess then five years and for the period during which he satisfied the definition of 'employee' under section 2 (e) of the Act. 30. is entitled to payment of gratuity, if he has rendered continuous service for not Jess then five years and for the period during which he satisfied the definition of 'employee' under section 2 (e) of the Act. 30. There is no dispute on the principles laid 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. 31. Here in these cases, there are circulars and agreements, as referred to above, available on the records. Sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Art makes it clear that an 'employee' is entitled to better terms of gratuity under an agreement, award or contract. 32. 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. 33. Learned counsel for the respondent employees, however, submitted that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by he Government to its employees, rather it is a Valuable right and properties of the employees and in support of his contention, he referred to decisions in Sudhir Chandra Sarkar Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ors (A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1064); State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 356); and M/s Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority & ors. (A.I.R. 187 Patna 96 (FB). 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. 34. Ltd. Vs. Joint Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority & ors. (A.I.R. 187 Patna 96 (FB). 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. 34. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions. Accordingly they are 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. Applications dismissed.