Judgment : Ghulam Mohammed, J. Both these appeals can be conveniently dealt with and decided as they arise out of common set of facts. 2. Writ Appeal No.847 of 2004 is preferred by the State Bank of Hyderabad (henceforth referred to as ‘Bank’), challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by it. W.A.No.866 of 2004 was preferred by the Bank against the Judgment rendered in W.P.No.12354 of 1997 preferred by the employee. 3. The third respondent herein is the employee. The third respondent/employee joined the service of the Bank on 30.11.1946 and ultimately retired from its service as a Special Assistant on 03.06.1982. Thus, he has rendered a total service of 35 Years, 6 Months and 3 Days to the employer. He was paid a sum of Rs.23,327.50 ps as gratuity in accordance with the State Bank of Hyderabad Gratuity Regulations 1960 (henceforth referred to as ‘Regulations’). Subsequently, he was also further paid a sum of Rs.866.68 ps. Regulation 5 dealt with the amount of gratuity payable to the employees, according to which, a sum equal to one month’s pay for each completed year of service in the bank subject to a maximum of 15 months pay or Rs.24,000/-whichever is less is payable. Further, an additional sum equal to half month’s pay in respect of each completed year of service in the bank in excess of 30 years is also payable. In accordance with these regulations, the third respondent/employee was paid in all a sum of Rs.24,194.18 ps. After lapse of 11 years, the employee has approached the Controlling Authority under ‘The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972’, complaining that there was deficit payment of gratuity to him in a sum of Rs.4,981/-by the employer. On 06.03.1996, the 2nd respondent allowed the said claim by ordering for payment of Rs.4,981/-representing the deficit amount of gratuity and also a sum of Rs.8,219/-towards interest for the delayed payment. Then the employer carried the matter in appeal to the appellate authority. That appeal was allowed in part by directing the employer to pay only a sum of Rs.1,444.30 ps. Challenging the said order, the writ petition has been preferred. The third respondent/employee also challenged the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority dated 30.03.1997 by instituting another W.P.No12354 of 1997. 4. That appeal was allowed in part by directing the employer to pay only a sum of Rs.1,444.30 ps. Challenging the said order, the writ petition has been preferred. The third respondent/employee also challenged the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority dated 30.03.1997 by instituting another W.P.No12354 of 1997. 4. It was not in dispute that the employee has last drawn his wages at Rs.1,363/-per month. This is how the employer calculated the gratuity payable to the employee. It multiplied the last month wages drawn by the employer by 15, for the first 30 years. (It comes to Rs.20,445). For the service rendered by the employee beyond 30 years, it divided the monthly wages by 2 and then multiplied it by 6. (It comes to Rs.4,089/-). The whole question that was agitated before the learned single Judge was whether the calculation carried out by the Bank, is in accord with the amendment introduced by amending Act 22 of 1987 by adding an explanation to Subsection 2 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which amendment has been brought into force with effect from 01.02.1991? whereas, in the instant case the employee has retired from service much prior thereto on 03.06.1982. Therefore, it was contended that, the order passed by the competent authority as affirmed by the appellate authority under the gratuity act is erroneous. The learned single Judge has repelled this contention and hence this appeal. 5. It is not in dispute that, as per Regulation 5 of State Bank of Hyderabad (Payment of Gratuity to Employees) Regulations 1960, an employee shall be paid gratuity equal to one month’s pay for each completed year of service for the first 30 years subject to maximum of 15 months pay or Rs.24,000/-whichever is less and in addition, a sum equal to half month’s pay in respect of each completed year of service in the bank in excess of 30 years. Hence, for the first 30 years of service, bank has to calculate 15 months wages at the first instance. If it works out to less than Rs.24,000/-the said amount should be taken into reckoning. If on the other hand if it exceeds Rs.24,000/-then it should be confined to Rs.24,000/-. Thereafter, for each year of service rendered beyond 30 years, half months’ wages have to be paid. If it works out to less than Rs.24,000/-the said amount should be taken into reckoning. If on the other hand if it exceeds Rs.24,000/-then it should be confined to Rs.24,000/-. Thereafter, for each year of service rendered beyond 30 years, half months’ wages have to be paid. The most vital component, for calculation of amount of gratuity payable to an employee, is the “monthly wages”. 6. If we examine Subsection 2 of Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (henceforth referred to as ‘Act’), it becomes explicitly clear that for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of 6 months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of 15 days wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. Therefore, there is a similarity in the expressions used by Regulation 5 and Subsection 2 of Section 4 of the Act, to the extent of requiring the monthly pay or wages to be determined first for purpose of calculating the total amount of gratuity payable. 7. Different High Courts in the country had dealt with this issue differently. A learned single Judge of this Court had an occasion to consider the issue in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Kistna Cement Works, Kistna Guntur District. V. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, (Regional Assistant Commr of Labour, Guntur) (1976) I LLJ 222 (AP) which decision was approved by a Division Bench in Swamy V. Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Ac (1978) 52 FJR 138 (AP). Calcutta High Court dealt with this issue in Hukumchand Jute Mills Ltd. V. State of West Bengal (1976) 49 FJR 145 and the Bombay High Court in Lakshmi Vishnu Textile Mills V. P.S. Mavlankar (1979) I LLJ 443 and the Madras High Court in M/s Binny Ltd. Ultimately the Supreme Court in Digvijay Wollen Mills Ltd. V Mahendra Prataprai Buch (1980) II LLJ 252 SC considered this question. Once again, the same question has fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jeewanlal Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Others AIR 1984 SC 1842 . A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court has pointed out the following in paragraphs 12,13,14 and 16 to the following effect: “12. Once again, the same question has fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jeewanlal Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Others AIR 1984 SC 1842 . A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court has pointed out the following in paragraphs 12,13,14 and 16 to the following effect: “12. In dealing with interpretation of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the Act, we must keep in view the scheme of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act incorporates the concept of gratuity being a reward for long, continuous and meritorious service. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act provides for payment of gratuity at the rate of "fifteen days' wages" based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned for every completed year of service. The legislative intent is obvious. Had the legislature slopped with the words "fifteen days' wages" occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act there was something to be said for the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants based upon the decision of learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Associated Cement's case which was later approved by a Division Bench of that Court in Swamy's case. But the legislature did not stop with the words "fifteen days' wages" in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The words "fifteen days' wages" are preceded by the words "at the rate of" and qualified by the words "based on the rate of wages last drawn" by the employee concerned. The emphasis is not on what an employee would have earned in the course of fifteen days during the month when his employment was last terminated, but on the rate of fifteen days' wages for every completed year of service, based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. The word 'rate appears twice in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 and it necessarily involves the concept of actual working days. In Shri Digvijay Wollen Mills' case the Court rightly observed that although a month is understood to consist of 30 days, gratuity payable under the Act treating the monthly wages as wages for 26 working days is not new or unknown. 13. In Shri Digvijay Wollen Mills' case the Court rightly observed that although a month is understood to consist of 30 days, gratuity payable under the Act treating the monthly wages as wages for 26 working days is not new or unknown. 13. In construing a social welfare legislation, the court should adopt a beneficent rule of construction and if a section is capable of two constructions, that construction should be preferred which fulfils the policy of the Act, and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest the Act has been passed. When, however, the language is plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to it whatever may be the consequence, for, in that case, the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature. When the language is explicit, its consequences are for the legislature and not for the courts to consider. The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are two methods of construction. In their anxiety to advance beneficent purpose of legislation, the courts must not yield to the temptation of seeking ambiguity when there is none. 14. It is not correct to say that the decision in Shri Digvijay Wollen Mills' case does not lay down any principle. Gupta, J. speaking for the Court set out the following passage from the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills' case : The employer is to be paid gratuity for every completed year of service and the only yardstick provided is that the rate of wages last drawn by an employee concerned shall be utilized and on that basis at the rate of fifteen days wages for each year of service, the gratuity would be computed. In any factory it is well known that an employee never works and could never be permitted to work for all the 30 days of the month. He gets 52 Sundays in a year as paid holidays and, therefore, the basic wages and dearness allowance are always fixed by taking into consideration this economic reality....A worker gets full month's wages not by remaining on duty for all the 30 days within a month but remaining on work and doing duty for only 26 days. He gets 52 Sundays in a year as paid holidays and, therefore, the basic wages and dearness allowance are always fixed by taking into consideration this economic reality....A worker gets full month's wages not by remaining on duty for all the 30 days within a month but remaining on work and doing duty for only 26 days. The other extra holidays may make some marginal variation into 26 working days, but all wage boards and wage fixing authorities or Tribunals in the country have always followed this pattern of fixation of wages by this method of 26 working days. And then observed : The view expressed in the extract quoted above appears to be legitimate and reasonable. The learned Judge then went on to say : Ordinarily of course a month is understood to mean 30 days, but the manner of calculating gratuity payable under the Act to the employees who work for 26 days a month followed by the Gujarat High Court cannot be called perverse. He further observed that it was not necessary to consider whether another view was possible and declined to interfere under Article 136 in a matter where the High Court had taken a view favourable to the employees and the view taken could not be said to be in any way unreasonable and perverse, and then added : Incidentally, to indicate that treating monthly wages as wages for 26 working days is not anything unique or unknown. We find that the same view has been taken by as many as three High Courts viz. by the Calcutta, Bombay and Gujarat High Courts in the cases referred to at the Bar. We rind no compelling reason to take a view different from the one expressed by this Court in Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills' case. 15. ………………… 16. The next question is : whether a month cannot mean 26 working days for purposes of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act and 30 days for purposes of Sub-section (3) thereof. We rind no compelling reason to take a view different from the one expressed by this Court in Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills' case. 15. ………………… 16. The next question is : whether a month cannot mean 26 working days for purposes of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act and 30 days for purposes of Sub-section (3) thereof. It is said that if a month under Sub-section (2) connotes 26 working days in a month for purposes of calculating the amount of gratuity, then the rule of harmonious construction requires that the words "20 months' wages" in Sub-section (3) thereof must mean wages for 520 working days taking the actual working days in 20 months and not 600 days taking that a month consists of 30 days. The contention is wholly misconceived. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 of the Act are designed to achieve two separate and distinct objects and they operate at two different stages. While Subsection (2) provides for the mode of calculation of the amount of gratuity, Sub-section (3) seeks to impose a ceiling on the amount of gratuity payable at 20 months wages. It is meant to provide an incentive to employee to serve for the period of 30 years or more.” (Emphasis is generated) 8. In view of the authoritative pronouncement on the subject by the Supreme Court, the argument that the explanation was added to Subsection 2 of Section 4 of the Act by amending Act No.22 of 1987, which was brought into force from 01.02.1991 and hence is not attracted to the facts of the present case pales itself into insignificance. The amendment has been brought about to Subsection 2 of Section 4 by the Parliament only to ensure that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Digvijay Wollen Mills’ Case and Jeewanlal’s case is rendered applicable uniformly to everyone covered by the payment of Gratuity Act. Even without the necessity of such an amendment, the various High Courts and the Supreme Court by way of an interpretative process have come to the conclusion to the same effect. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the contention canvassed before us by Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The third respondent/employee has rendered 35 Years, 6 Months and 3 Days service to the appellant/employer. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the contention canvassed before us by Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The third respondent/employee has rendered 35 Years, 6 Months and 3 Days service to the appellant/employer. For all practical purposes the length of service deserves to be counted as 36 Years of qualifying service. As per Regulation 5 of the Regulations of the appellant/bank for the first 30 years of service, 15 months wages will have to be paid or Rs.24,000/-whichever is less. Therefore, the appellant/bank is required to multiply the monthly wages X 15 and only in case it exceeds Rs.24,000/-, it is liable to pay Rs.24,000/-. In the event that 15 months wages works out to less than Rs.24,000/-, the said amount will have to be paid. For the next 6 years of service rendered by the third respondent/employee beyond 30 years, he is entitled to be paid 15 days wages for each such year of service. Therefore, inevitably, the appellant/bank has to compete at the monthly wages. As was noticed, every employee would be working only for 26 days in a month. One day in a week is a compulsory paid holiday for him. Therefore, for purposes of calculation of gratuity payable, the monthly wages last drawn will have to be divided by 26 so as to arrive at one single day’s wages. Then it has to be multiplied by 30 to arrive at a true component of monthly wage. In terms of Regulation 5, such a true monthly wage component has got to be multiplied by 15 first. If the said amount is less than Rs.24,000/-, the same should be taken into account and in case it exceeds Rs.24,000/-, the said component has got to be confined to Rs.24,000/-. Thereafter, the monthly wage component arrived at supra must be divided by ½ and then multiplied by the number of years of service rendered by the employee beyond 30 years, which happens to be 6 years in the instant case. [Last drawn wage being Rs.1,363/-, the calculation should be as under: 1 1363/26 = 52.42 That was not done by the 2 52.42 X 30 = 1572.6 appellant/bank. [Last drawn wage being Rs.1,363/-, the calculation should be as under: 1 1363/26 = 52.42 That was not done by the 2 52.42 X 30 = 1572.6 appellant/bank. That was 3 1572.6 X 15 = 23,589.00 exactly what has been 4 52.42 X 30/2 X 6 = 4717.8 ordered, to be done by the 5 TOTAL = SAY 28,306.80 Rs.28,307 primary controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.Unfortunately, the appellate authority has failed to notice properly this aspect of the mater in its order dated 09.03.2009. The learned single Judge of this Court has rightly appreciated the principle involved in this matter and dismissed the writ petition instituted by the appellant/bank. We have therefore no hesitation to dismiss these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed, but however without costs.