Judgment :- In this writ petition, the petitioner Bank has challenged an order of the first respondent made in Gratuity Appeal No.307 of 2003, dated 24. 2005. 2. The third respondent made an application before the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chennai in G.A.No.32 of 1997 under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming difference of gratuity amount of Rs.85,400/-along with interest. On enquiry, the Controlling Authority has passed an order in favour of the third respondent employee. Aggrieved the management Bank took it on appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the order of the Controlling Authority was affirmed. Not satisfied with the same, the management has brought forth this writ petition before this court. .3. What was all contended by the Management before the authorities below and equally here also is that the third respondent joined the Bank in the year 1957 and he retired as an Officer on 31.05.1994; that as per Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he was paid Gratuity amount of Rs.1 lakh, which was the maximum Gratuity payable as per the provisions of the Act on the date of his retirement and the same is also beneficial to him. On 23. 1995, a settlement was arrived at between the Indian Banks Association representing the Management and the Apex level Officers Association. According to that settlement, salary revision alone was given with retrospective effect from 7. 1993 and that the third respondent was accordingly paid the arrears of salary consequent upon the revision with effect from 7. 1993 till the date of his retirement, namely 35. 1994. So far as the Gratuity was concerned, no question of revision would arise, since the cut-off date that was given was from 11. 1994 and the third respondent retired on 35. 1994 and hence, he was not entitled to the difference of Gratuity amount, though he was entitled to difference of salary, which was given to him and under these circumstances, the Authorities below have not looked into either the factual or legal positions. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that so far as the different cut-off dates for the salary and Gratuity was concerned, it was challenged by the various employees similarly placed like the third respondent in this court in W.P.No.7365 of 1999 along with batch of cases. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that so far as the different cut-off dates for the salary and Gratuity was concerned, it was challenged by the various employees similarly placed like the third respondent in this court in W.P.No.7365 of 1999 along with batch of cases. This court has upheld the cut off date 11. 1994 for Gratuity. Under these circumstances, the third respondent, who retired even prior to the date, namely 11. 1994, was not entitled to have any claim over the difference in Gratuity. Hence, the orders of the authorities below have got to be quashed. .5. In answer to the above, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the instant case, the third respondent was entitled to have the benefit of the same; that it is true, he retired on 35. 1994; that there was a settlement on 23. 1995, pursuant to which he was entitled not only the difference in arrears of salary, but also the Gratuity also; that so far as the arrears of salary was concerned, it was given from 7. 1993 till 35. 1994; that the contentions put forth by the petitioners side that the cut-off date so far as the Gratuity was concerned was from 11. 1994 and hence, he was not entitled for the same and the cut-off date 11. 1994 for Gratuity was upheld by this court in the writ petition, referred to above, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the persons, who actually sought for the relief earlier, were not employees, since the amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act came into force from 25. 1994 and thus, he could be strictly termed as an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which was amended in 1994 and hence, the decisions, which was canvassed by the petitioner cannot be of any avail to this case and therefore, it is a case where the authorities below have gone into the legal positions and have ordered so and hence, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. 6. The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. The court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition does not carry any merit whatsoever. 6. The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. The court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition does not carry any merit whatsoever. In the instant case, as could be seen above, the short facts were the petitioner, who joined the service in the year 1957, retired as an officer on 35. 1994. There was settlement arrived between the employees and the management on 23. 1995, pursuant to which there was revision of salary, which accordingly has been paid with effect from 7. 1993 till 35. 1994, the date of retirement of the third respondent. So far as the Gratuity was concerned, a claim was made that he was entitled to have the benefit of revision as to the Gratuity also till the time of his retirement. .7. The contention that was raised before the authorities below and equally here also is that it is true, the third respondent retired on 35. 1994, but as per the agreement, the cut-off date for Gratuity was from 11. 1994 and thus, since he retired on 35. 1994 even prior to the said cut-off date of 11. 1994, he was not entitled to the benefit and so far as Gratuity was concerned, it has been upheld by this court in W.P.No.7365 of 1999 and hence, the third respondent was not entitled to the benefit. The argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner though attractive at the first instance, the court is of the considered opinion that it will not stand the scrutiny of law for two reasons. Firstly, so far as the cut-off date for Gratuity from 11. 1994 was concerned, the contention is that it has been upheld in the earlier writ petition. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the third respondent, an amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act came into force from 25. 1994 and the third respondent retired only on 35. 1994. Since the amendment Act came into effect even before the retirement of the third respondent, he has got to be strictly termed as an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1994. The contention that there was settlement entered into between the parties and so far as salary was concerned, it has got to be given effect to from the earlier date, but so far as Gratuity was concerned, the cut-off date was fixed as 11. The contention that there was settlement entered into between the parties and so far as salary was concerned, it has got to be given effect to from the earlier date, but so far as Gratuity was concerned, the cut-off date was fixed as 11. 1994 cannot be countenanced in law for the simple reason that any agreement entered into between the parties cannot take away the benefit that was afforded to the employees in law. 8. In the instant case, the contention that the third respondent was not entitled to the benefit, since the cut-off date for Gratuity was 11. 1994, but he retired on 35. 1994, cannot be countenanced at all. Applying the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the court is of the considered opinion that the third respondent is entitled for the relief and the reasons adduced by the authorities below were very clear, acceptable and convincing also. Under these circumstances, the writ petition does not carry any merit and it requires an order of dismissal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.