JUDGMENT : K.M. THAKER, J. 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the respondent in Special Civil Application No.10089 of 2002. So far as Special Civil Application Nos.1630 of 2013 and 1631 of 2013 are concerned, the respondents, though served, have not entered appearance. 2. In this group of three petitions, similar and identical issue is involved and except the facts with regard to the date of joining of the concerned respondent and the date of resignation, other relevant facts and related issues are similar and that, therefore, learned advocates have made similar and common submissions in respect of their respective clients in these three petitions. Since the challenge against the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short) is raised on common grounds and contentions, these petitions are decided by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by common order dated 3.2.2001 passed by the Controlling Authority in Payment of Gratuity Applications No.160, 162 and 177 of 2000 filed by three claimants who were in service with the petitioner (i.e. three respondents in present petitions) whereby the Controlling Authority directed present petitioner to pay sum of Rs.35,977.50 to Mr. D.H. Pathak and Rs.35,977.50 to Mr. A.B. Barot and Rs.34,057/- to Mr. M.R. Amin, with 10% simple interest till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Controlling Authority, the petitioner herein filed appeal before the Appellate Authority appointed under the Act. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeals vide order dated 26.7.2002 and confirmed the order dated 3.2.2001 passed by the Controlling Authority. 3.1 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2001 passed by the Controlling Authority and the order dated 26.7.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner have taken out these petitions. 4. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner establishment and the respondent-workmen that: 4.1. The petitioner establishment is a “Newspaper Establishment” within the meaning of the said term defined under Section 2(d) of the Working Journalists and Other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Journalist Act”) and it is engaged in publishing daily newspaper in Gujarati language. The petitioner establishment is a “Newspaper Establishment” within the meaning of the said term defined under Section 2(d) of the Working Journalists and Other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Journalist Act”) and it is engaged in publishing daily newspaper in Gujarati language. The Journalists Act is applicable to the petitioner establishment and to its employees. The original applicants (i.e. present respondents) were employed by the petitioner as working journalist i.e. in the category of Reporter or Reporter-cum-Sub-Editor. 4.2. The respondent – Mr. D.H.Pathak had joined the petitioner establishment w.e.f. 1.9.1990 (appointed as Reported-cumsub- editor vide appointment order dated 29.8.1990), the respondent – Mr. A.B.Barot had joined the petitioner establishment w.e.f. 1.9.1995 (appointed as Reported-cumsub- editor vide appointment order dated 29.8.1990) and the respondent – Mr. M.R.Amin had joined the petitioner establishment on 18.6.1991. At the relevant time the respondents were working as Reporter or Reporter-cum-sub- Editor. 4.3. Subsequently, the respondents tendered resignations (the resignation letter by Mr. A.M. Barot is dated 13.9.1999 and the resignation letter by Mr. D.H. Pathak is also dtd. 13.9.1999 whereas the resignation letter by Mr. Amin does not bear/reflect any date) from the service of the petitioner establishment respectively and thereafter, they demanded gratuity which was denied by the petitioner and that therefore they filed gratuity claim applications before the controlling authority on 18.8.2000, 18.8.2000 and 13.7.2000. 4.4. From the dates when the claimants filed gratuity claim applications and in view of the fact that gratuity claim applications could not have been filed before the date/s when the respondents submitted the resignation, it can be safely derived that the resignations must have been tendered before the date of claim applications i.e. before July 2000 and August, 2000. 4.5. The respondents filed gratuity claim applications July 2000/August, 2000, with the allegation that though they are eligible and entitled for payment of gratuity in accordance with the provisions contained under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner establishment has not paid gratuity. With such allegations the respondents demanded gratuity. 4.6 The petitioner establishment opposed the applications on the ground that the claimants had not completed service for 10 years before they submitted resignations and that therefore they are not entitled for gratuity under the Journalists Act. With such allegations the respondents demanded gratuity. 4.6 The petitioner establishment opposed the applications on the ground that the claimants had not completed service for 10 years before they submitted resignations and that therefore they are not entitled for gratuity under the Journalists Act. It is further submitted that the concerned claimants are working journalists and employees within the meaning of said terms under the provisions of the Journalists Act and their employment is governed by the provisions under Journalists Act and that therefore, they are not eligible to claim gratuity under and in accordance with the Payment of Gratuity Act. 4.7 The controlling authority considered rival submissions and adjudicated the applications and vide order dated 3.2.2001, the controlling authority rejected the contentions of the opponent establishment i.e. present petitioner and allowed gratuity claim applications. 4.8 Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the controlling authority in respect of payment of gratuity applications No.160 of 2000, 162 of 2000 and 177 of 2000, the establishment filed appeals before the appellate authority. The appellate authority heard the parties and considered the appeals and rejected the appeals vide order/s dated 26.7.2002. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner establishment, submitted that the respondents worked as working journalists with the petitioner establishment. He further submitted that total tenure of their services with the petitioner establishment was less than 10 years and before completing 10 years of service, the said respondents had tendered resignations and that therefore, in view of the provisions under the Working Journalists Act, the respondents are not eligible for gratuity, inasmuch as in cases where the working journalist tenders resignation from service before completing 10 years of service, then, according to the provisions under Section 5 of the Working Journalists Act, such journalists would not be eligible for gratuity. 5.1 Mr. Rawal, learned advocate for the respondents, vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and he defended the orders passed by the authority under the Act. The learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the relevant provisions under the Journalists Act is discriminatory as compared to the provisions under the Gratuity Act and the employees covered by the provisions under the Journalists Act are unreasonably deprived of gratuity that would be available to them by considering their case and claim under the provisions of Gratuity Act. The learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the relevant provisions under the Journalists Act is discriminatory as compared to the provisions under the Gratuity Act and the employees covered by the provisions under the Journalists Act are unreasonably deprived of gratuity that would be available to them by considering their case and claim under the provisions of Gratuity Act. It is pertinent that though such contentions are sought to be raised the claimants have not challenged either vires of the provisions (related to gratuity) under Journalist Act. Mr. Raval, learned advocate, also relied on the sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act and submitted that the claimant would be entitled for better benefit if it is available under provisions of gratuity Act or contract or agreement and that therefore, the claimant's demand for gratuity should not be denied and the authorities have rightly and justifiably granted the application in favour of the respondents and there is no justification to interfere with the order by the controlling authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. The learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that the Court would not enter into process of re-appreciation of evidence but merely because another view is possible the view taken by controlling authority and the appellate authority may not be disturbed. He further submitted that interpretation of the relevant provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and under the Act undertaken by the controlling authority and appellate authority is just and proper and the said interpretation does not warrant any interference. He further submitted that since the provision under Gratuity Act are more beneficial, the claim and right of the said provisions deserve to be accepted instead of rejecting the claim and depriving claimants by complying the provisions of Working Journalists Act. 6. I have heard learned advocates and I have considered material on record and impugned orders. 7. According to the claim in the petition the respondent – Mr. D.H.Pathak had joined the petitioner establishment w.e.f. 1.9.1990, the respondent – Mr. A.B.Barot had joined the petitioner establishment w.e.f. 1.9.1995 and the respondent – Mr. M.R.Amin had joined the petitioner establishment on 18.6.1991. 7.1 The petitioner has claimed that the respondents tendered resignations from the service with the petitioner establishment. 7.2 During the hearing of this petition the petitioner placed on record copies of the resignations which the respondents had tendered. A.B.Barot had joined the petitioner establishment w.e.f. 1.9.1995 and the respondent – Mr. M.R.Amin had joined the petitioner establishment on 18.6.1991. 7.1 The petitioner has claimed that the respondents tendered resignations from the service with the petitioner establishment. 7.2 During the hearing of this petition the petitioner placed on record copies of the resignations which the respondents had tendered. The resignations are handwritten. The resignation which bears name of Mr. Barot reflects date 13.9.1999 (as the date of resignation) whereas the resignation which bears name of Mr. Pathak reflects 13.9.1999 (as the date of resignation) however the resignation which bears name of Mr. Amit does not reflect any date. 7.3 After tendering resignations, the respondents demanded gratuity from the petitioner. The petitioner did not accept the demand of the respondents. 7.4 Thereafter, the respondents Mr. Pathak and Mr. Barot and Mr. Amin filed gratuity claim applications before the controlling authority on 18.8.2000, 18.8.2000 and 13.7.2000 respectively with the allegation that though they are eligible and entitled for payment of gratuity in accordance with the provisions contained under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner establishment did not pay gratuity. 7.5 The petitioner establishment opposed the applications on abovementioned grounds. 7.6 The controlling authority considered rival submissions and adjudicated the applications and vide order dated 3.2.2001, the controlling authority rejected the contentions of the opponent establishment i.e. present petitioner and allowed the gratuity applications. 7.7 Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the controlling authority in the gratuity claim applications filed by the respondents the establishment filed appeal/s before the appellate authority. The appellate authority heard the parties and rejected the appeal/s vide order dated 26.7.2002. Now the petitioner has placed said orders under challenge on above mentioned grounds. 8. So as to consider rival contentions it is necessary to take into account relevant provisions under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Working Journalists and other Newspapers Employees (conditions of service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. 8.1 So far as Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is concerned it is necessary to take into account sub-section (3) of Section 1, Section 2(e), Section 4(1) and Section 4(5). The said provisions read thus:- “1. 8.1 So far as Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is concerned it is necessary to take into account sub-section (3) of Section 1, Section 2(e), Section 4(1) and Section 4(5). The said provisions read thus:- “1. (3) It shall apply to-- (a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company; (b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months; (c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. 2. (e) “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, 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, 5 [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] 4 (1) 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,— (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: 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.” 8.2 So far as the provision under Journalists Act is concerned relevant provisions are section 2(c), 2(d), 2(bb) and 2(f) and Section 5. The said provisions read thus:- “2(c) “newspaper employee” means any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment. The said provisions read thus:- “2(c) “newspaper employee” means any working journalist, and includes any other person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment. (d) “Newspaper establishment” means an establishment under the control of any person or body of persons, whether incorporate or not, for the production or publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate [and includes newspaper establishment specified as one establishment under the schedule. (dd) “non-journalist newspaper employee” means a person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment, but does not include any such person who- (i) is a working journalist, or (ii) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (iii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. (f) "working journalist" means a person whose principal avocation is that of a journalist and [who is employed as such, either whole time or part-time, in, or in relation to, one or more newspaper establishments], and includes an editor, a leader-writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature-writer, copy tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist, news-photographer and proof-reader, but does not include any such person who— (i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity, performs, either by the nature of the duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; (emphasis supplied) 5. Payment of gratuity.- (1) Where-- (a) any working journalist has been in continuous service, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for not less than three years in any newspaper establishment, and— (i) his services are terminated by the employer in relation to that newspaper establishment for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action; or (ii) he retires from service on reaching the age of superannuation; or (b) any working journalist has been in continuous service, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, for not less than ten years in any newspaper establishment, and he voluntarily resigns on or after the 1st day of July, 1961, from service in that newspaper establishment on any ground whatsoever other than on the ground of conscience; or (c) any working journalist has been in continuous service, whether before or after the commencement of this Act for not less than three years in any newspaper establishment, and he voluntarily resigns on or after the 1st day of July, 1961, from service in that establishment on the ground of conscience; or (d) any working journalist dies while he is in service in any newspaper establishment, (2) Any dispute whether a working journalist has voluntarily resigned from service in any newspaper establishment on the ground of conscience shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. So far as relevant facts are concerned it is necessary to note that it is not in dispute that the three claimants fall within purview of Section 2(f) of the Act which define the term “Working Journalist”. 9.1 It is also not in dispute that the claimants had tendered resignation from the service of the petitioner establishment and service of said three respondents came to an end on account of their resignations. 9.2 It has also emerged that the respondents submitted resignations before they completed service for 10 years with the petitioner establishment. 9.3 It is not in dispute that after submitting resignation the said three claimants filed gratuity claim applications. Mr. Pathak and Mr. Barot filed gratuity claim applications on 18.8.2000 and Mr. Amit filed the application on 13.7.2000. 9.2 It has also emerged that the respondents submitted resignations before they completed service for 10 years with the petitioner establishment. 9.3 It is not in dispute that after submitting resignation the said three claimants filed gratuity claim applications. Mr. Pathak and Mr. Barot filed gratuity claim applications on 18.8.2000 and Mr. Amit filed the application on 13.7.2000. 9.4 It is also not in dispute that the said applications were filed before the controlling authority under Gratuity Act under Section 7 of Gratuity Act and the respondents claimed gratuity in accordance with the provision and formula prescribed under Gratuity Act. As mentioned earlier the authorities under Gratuity Act have allowed the claim of present respondents and said decision are subject matter of challenge in these petitions. 10. In this background it is appropriate to also take into account comparative analysis of relevant provision under Journalist Act and under Gratuity Act. 10.1. According to the provision under Gratuity Act an employee within the purview of term defined under Section 2(e) of the said Act would be entitled to claim and receive gratuity upon completion of service of 5 years, provided (i) he is an employee within purview of Section 2(e) of the Act; and (ii) he is employed in undertaking covered under Section 1(3) (a) or (b) of Gratuity Act or an undertaking in respect of which notification is issued under clause (c) of Section 1(3) of gratuity act; and (iii) his service comes to an end, after completion of 5 years from the date of appointment, by any of the modes prescribed under Section 4(1) of Gratuity Act. Thus, besides abovementioned other conditions, so far as minimum tenure of service required for eligibility or entitlement in gratuity act is concerned, the Payment of Gratuity Act requires minimum 5 years of service. 10.2. On the other hand said section 5 also prescribes that in case where the working journalist attains age of superannuation, he shall be entitled for gratuity if he had been in continuous service with the establishment for not less than 3 years. However in the case where a working journalist voluntarily tenders resignation from service, except on account of conscience, he would be entitled for gratuity if he worked with the concerned newspaper establishment for not less than 10 years. However in the case where a working journalist voluntarily tenders resignation from service, except on account of conscience, he would be entitled for gratuity if he worked with the concerned newspaper establishment for not less than 10 years. It is pertinent that Gratuity Act does not differentiate between superannuation/retirement and resignation inasmuch as in all cases minimum 5 years service is the prescribed requirement/condition for entitlement under Gratuity Act. 10.3. Whereas under Gratuity Act in cases of superannuation or retirement or termination or resignation minimum tenure of service required for entitlement for gratuity is 5 years. 10.4. Of course in case of the working journalists who voluntarily submit resignation on account of conscience, an exception is carved out under Section 5(1)(c)of the Act whereby the working journalist who tenders resignation on ground of conscience is, of course, placed on par with working journalists (in the matter related to payment of gratuity) whose service comes to end on account of superannuation inasmuch as in cases where resignation is tendered by the working journalists on ground of conscience the requirement for being eligible is minimum service for three years. 10.5. Further it is also relevant to note that under journalist Act there is no cap in respect of amount payable towards gratuity in the cases where the service comes to an end on account of superannuation or retirement or resignation on ground of conscience. Of course upper limit of 12½ months average pay is fixed in cases of voluntary resignation which is not tendered on account of conscience. Whereas under gratuity Act upper limit is fixed at (after amendment) Rs.10 lakhs, in all cases i.e. in cases of voluntary retirement or superannuation or retirement or termination (except cases which fall under sub-section (c) of Section 4 of the gratuity act). 10.6. It is also pertinent to note that for the purpose of applicability of the Journalist Act employment of minimum number of employee in concerned newspaper establishment is not required, though, of course under Section 5 of the Journalist Act different lapses are prescribed for calculating/quantifying the amount payable towards gratuity in respect of establishment where not more than 6 working journalists are employed) whereas according to Section 1(3) of Gratuity Act employment of minimum 10 employees is prescribed requirement for applicability of gratuity Act to the establishments which came within purview of section 1(3) (b) of the Act. 11. 11. In the backdrop of aforesaid comparative status of the Journalists Act and Gratuity Act the claimants would contend that they are eligible for gratuity under Gratuity Act in view of sub-section (5) of Section 4 of gratuity Act. Differently put, according to the claimants gratuity Act would prevail over Journalist Act in the matter of payment of gratuity. 12. In view of the said submissions of the claimants it is appropriate to take into account Section 14 of the Gratuity Act and Section 16 of the Journalist act which reads thus:- “14. Act to override other enactments, etc.- The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding 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.” 12.1 Section 16 of the Journalist Act reads thus:- “16. Effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Act.- (1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act: Provided that where under any such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise, a newspaper employee is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the newspaper employee shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act. (2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to preclude any newspaper employee from entering into an agreement with an employer for granting him rights or privileges in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act.” 13. In present case claim for better benefit is raised on the belief or on the premise that the Gratuity Act would prevail over the Journalists Act. The said belief or contention is, in turn, based on the premise or understanding that the Gratuity Act is later Act and on the belief or understanding that Gratuity Act is beneficial. 14. In present case claim for better benefit is raised on the belief or on the premise that the Gratuity Act would prevail over the Journalists Act. The said belief or contention is, in turn, based on the premise or understanding that the Gratuity Act is later Act and on the belief or understanding that Gratuity Act is beneficial. 14. On this count it is necessary to also note that Section 14 of the gratuity act provides that the provisions of gratuity act and rules framed there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any enactment or in any instrument or contract. 14.1. On the other hand Section 16 of the Journalists Act provides that the journalists Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law or award or agreement or contract of service. 14.2 The proviso of section 16 of the journalists act has carved out an exception with regard to better benefit whereby it is prescribed that if better benefit is conferred to the working journalists under any award, agreement or contract of service or otherwise then that shall continue to be available to the newspaper employees (which terms include working journalists). Undoubtedly, the expression “or otherwise” in the proviso will take in its fold “other law” (i.e. Gratuity Act as well). 15. However, in this context it is relevant to note that there is difference between demand for more favourable benefits and eligibility or entitlement to the grant of benefits and it is necessary to keep in focus said distinction. 15.1. If a person is eligible for or entitled to any benefit or grant of benefit then only the question or occasion to raise claim for better or more favourable benefit would arise. If, in the first instance, the person is not entitled to or eligible for grant of benefit under a particular law, then question of his claim for better or more favourable benefit under that law would not arise. 16. In view of respondents' contention it is relevant to note that the gratuity Act is later enactment and it generally deals with and makes provision in respect of matters related to payment of gratuity to the employees engaged in any factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company shops or other establishments. 16. In view of respondents' contention it is relevant to note that the gratuity Act is later enactment and it generally deals with and makes provision in respect of matters related to payment of gratuity to the employees engaged in any factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company shops or other establishments. It is also relevant that the Journalists Act is undoubtedly, earlier enactment, however section 5 of the Journalists Act makes provision for payment of gratuity to a particular or specific class of employees viz. working journalists, whereas the Gratuity Act makes general provision for payment of gratuity in respect of employees in the establishments covered under section 1(3) of the Act and it is not restricted to a specific or particular class of employee, e.g. journalists or medical representatives or sales persons, etc. Therefore, with regard to the payment of gratuity to particular or specific class of employees, the Journalists Act, more particularly section 5 of the Journalists Act would partake status of “special law”. Besides this, the Section 5 of the Working Journalists Act is in nature of complete code so far as matters related to payment of gratuity to specific class of employees viz. working journalists are concerned. Further the said section 5 makes provision for payment of gratuity for working journalist. In this view of the matter Journalist Act is Special Act so far as working journalists and matters related to payment of gratuity are concerned. Needless to state that while enacting Gratuity Act legislature is presumed to be aware about section 5 and 16 of the journalists Act. At this stage it is appropriate to recall that as back as in 1961 Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the decision in case of Express Newspaper Limited vs. Union of India ( 1961 (1) LLJ 339 ) that journalist act is special law enacted for the journalists who are held to be a group entitled for special benefit. 16.1. In this view of the matter, the respondent's contention has to be examined by keeping in focus that so far as working journalists are concerned Journalists Act/Section 5 thereof is special law. 17. 16.1. In this view of the matter, the respondent's contention has to be examined by keeping in focus that so far as working journalists are concerned Journalists Act/Section 5 thereof is special law. 17. In this background, so far as the contention that Gratuity Act will prevail over said Section 5 of Journalists Act, reference can be had to the observations by Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in the case of The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Mysore vs. Vijayaba, Dowger Maharani Saheb, Bhavnagar and others [( AIR 1979 SC 982 ]. In paragraph No.12 of the said decision, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that: “12. … … … … … Though a law dealing with a particular subject may be a general law in the sense that it is a law of general applicability, laying down general rules, yet, it may contain special provisions … … …” 17.1 On this count, it would also be appropriate to take into account the observations by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur vs. Thakur Manmohan Dey and others [ AIR 1966 SC 1931 ) where Hon’ble Apex Court was concerned with the provisions under Bengal Ghatwali Lands Act, 1859 and the provisions under the Court of Wards Act, 1870 and upon considering the said two Acts, Hon’ble Apex Court observed in paragraph No.8 of the said decision that: “(8) It is, therefore, clear that Act V of 1859 is a special statute and Act IV of 1870 is a general statute. The special statute does not make the sanction of the Board of Revenue a pre-condition for the validity of the lease executed by a Court of Wards so as to bind all future possessors of the said land, whereas S. 9 of Act V of 1859 imposes such a condition. The argument is that both the Acts should be read together and, if so read, the sanction of the Board of Revenue would also be a precondition in addition to the conditions imposed under the proviso to S. 1 of Act V of 1859. In our view, such a contention is untenable. The principle of law in this regard is well settled. In Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, the relevant principle is stated, at p. 168, thus: “A general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. In our view, such a contention is untenable. The principle of law in this regard is well settled. In Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, the relevant principle is stated, at p. 168, thus: “A general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. Generalia specialibus non-derogant, or, in other words, “where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. In such cases it is presumed to have only general cases in view, and not particular cases which have been already otherwise provided for by the special Act.” In this principle is applicable to the instant case – we do not see any reason why it is not – the special provisions made under Act V of 1859 in regard to the conditions imposed for the validity of such a lease should prevail over those imposed under the general Act, Act IV of 1870. The general Act in regard to leases of Ghatwali lands should yield to the special Act. On this construction, the condition for the validity of the lease in question is that it should have been executed by the Court of Wards for the purpose of erection of dwelling houses. The lease of 1873 expressly states that the lease was granted for erecting dwelling houses. ...” 17.2 The quotation from Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes’ in the said decision emphasizes the principle that general later law does not abrogate an earlier special law by mere implication. There must be clear and specific provision or clear indication of such intent. In absence of such provision under Gratuity Act, it would not abrogate or prevail over Journalists Act/Section 5 thereof. 18. Further, in view of the protection provided by section 16 of the journalists Act, the said section 5 of journalists act would not be affected by section 4 and/or 7 of gratuity act and the said provisions of gratuity act will not, on the strength of section 14 of gratuity act, override or prevail over section 5 of journalists act. Further, in view of the protection provided by section 16 of the journalists Act, the said section 5 of journalists act would not be affected by section 4 and/or 7 of gratuity act and the said provisions of gratuity act will not, on the strength of section 14 of gratuity act, override or prevail over section 5 of journalists act. 18.1 In this view of the matter, it has to be held that so far as the working journalists and their claim for payment of gratuity are concerned, they would be governed by and should be decided in light of the provision under section 5 of the Journalists Act and said provision would prevail. 18.2 Besides this, now, in view of subsequent decision and observation by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P. Rajan Sandhi vs. Union of India 2010 (10) SCC 338 , further and detailed discussion or elaboration with regard to issue as to whether gratuity act would prevail over journalist act, is not required. In paragraph No. 11 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- “11....We are of the opinion that Section 5 of the Working Journalist Act being a special law will prevail over section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act which is a general law. Section 5 of the working journalists act is only for working journalists, whereas the Payment of Gratuity Act is available to all employees who are covered by that Act and is not limited to working journalists. Hence, the Working Journalists Act is a special law, whereas the Payment of Gratuity Act is a general law. It is well settled that special law will prevail over the general law, vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn., 2004, pp. 133 and 134.” 18.3 Thus, the controversy with regard to the issue whether gratuity act would prevail over journalist act is given quietus and it stands settled with the said observation by Hon'ble Apex Court. 18.4 As held by Apex Court the Journalists Act, more particularly section 5 thereof, being special law (for working journalists) will prevail over gratuity Act being general law so for as working journalists are concerned. Therefore, this Court has to consider and decide their gratuity claim applications in light of the provision under section 5 of the Journalists Act. 19. 18.4 As held by Apex Court the Journalists Act, more particularly section 5 thereof, being special law (for working journalists) will prevail over gratuity Act being general law so for as working journalists are concerned. Therefore, this Court has to consider and decide their gratuity claim applications in light of the provision under section 5 of the Journalists Act. 19. Once the said finding is reached it would be necessary to examine the impugned orders and the issue; whether the claimants are entitled for gratuity under the Journalists Act and whether impugned order and directions are sustainable. 19.1 In this background, it is relevant and necessary to take into account that according to Section 5 of the Journalist Act the working journalist, who submitted resignation, would be entitled to claim and receive gratuity provided he completed service of 10 years before he submitted resignation. Further, since an exception is carved out by clause (c) of section 5(1) whereby entitlement for gratuity is conferred to the working journalists who submit resignation (even before completing service for 10 years) provided the resignation are submitted on ground of conscience and after completing minimum 3 years service, it would be necessary to determine as to whether (i) the respondents had worked for 10 years before they submitted resignations from service with petitioner newspaper establishment; and (ii) if not, then whether they submitted resignations on ground of conscience. 20. In present case inquiry into these aspects has brought out that neither the claimants had completed service for 10 years before they submitted their respective resignations nor they had submitted their respective their respective resignations on ground of conscience. Consequently, they would not be entitled for gratuity in light of the restriction contained under Section 5 of the Journalists Act. 20.1 In this context following details would summarize relevant facts:- Name Date of appointment Date of resignation Date on which the claimants filed claim applications Mr. D.H.Pathak 1.9.1990 13.9.1999 18.8.2000 Mr. A.M.Barot 18.6.1991 13.9.1999 18.8.2000 Mr. M.R. Amin 1.9.1995 Filed gratuity application on 13.7.2000 13.7.2000 20.2 The date on which the claim applications were filed brings out that even the applications were filed before completion of 10 years of service with petitioner Newspaper establishment. The date when claim applications were filed establishes the fact that the service of Mr. Pathak and Mr. M.R. Amin 1.9.1995 Filed gratuity application on 13.7.2000 13.7.2000 20.2 The date on which the claim applications were filed brings out that even the applications were filed before completion of 10 years of service with petitioner Newspaper establishment. The date when claim applications were filed establishes the fact that the service of Mr. Pathak and Mr. Barot were less than or short of 10 years as on the date of resignation and service of Mr. Amin was less than/short of 5 years as on date of resignation. 20.3 In light of these facts and in view of provisions under Journalists Act, the claim by the claimants would not be tenable under Section 5 of Journalists Act unless the claimants can establish that they had submitted their resignations on ground of conscience. 21. On this count, it is from the record it has come out that in case of all the three claimants, resignations were not submitted on the ground of conscience. 22. It is relevant to note that in present case the concerned respondents did not even claim and did not establish before the controlling authority or the appellate authority or at any other stage that they, or any one of them, had tendered resignation on the ground of conscience. That was not even the case of the respondents. 22.1 Actually when the letters of resignation and the text of letters of resignations are examined, then it comes out that the said letters of resignation also do not contain any reference to the “ground of conscience”. On the contrary, on reading the letters of resignation, it appears that the concerned respondents tendered resignations “for personal reason”. Likewise from the observations in impugned orders it comes out that the respondents did not claim, at any stage and/or before any authority and/or in any application, that they had tendered resignation on the ground of conscience. Important fact is that even before this Court the respondents have not come forward with claim and they have not raised said contention. 22.2 In this backdrop pertinent fact is that from the letter of the resignations (copies are placed on record by the petitioner) it has come out that (a) on one hand the claimants had not completed service for 10 years before the date when they submitted resignations and (b) the concerned respondents had not submitted resignations from service on the ground of conscience. Therefore, the cases of present respondents would, stand covered, under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act (and not under Section 5(1)(c) of the Journalists Act) in view of the fact that the service of present respondents came to an end on account of voluntary resignation which were submitted by the respondents before completing 10 years' service with the petitioner newspaper establishment. The said fact coupled with the fact that they did not tender resignation on ground of conscience, the exception carved out by virtue of clause (c) of Section 5(1) is not attracted in present case and the benefit of the said exception and/or protection which, in light of Section 5(1)(c), can be available to, or can be availed by the working journalist, even after submitting resignation before completion of 10 years' service is not available to the respondents. 23. It is appropriate at this stage to consider the contention that benefit under Gratuity Act being better, the benefit in accordance with Gratuity Act should be granted in view of Section 4(5) of Gratuity Act. On this count it is necessary to note that the question of eligibility is different and distinct from the question of entitlement. Only if a person is otherwise eligible for benefit/payment, then only question of entitlement for more or favourable benefit can be considered. In present case foregoing discussion has brought out that the respondent's claim for gratuity is governed by Section 5 of Journalists Act and that the Journalists Act/Section 5 of said Act being special law provision under the Gratuity Act would not prevail over Section 5 of Journalists Act and that therefore the claimants would not be entitled to or eligible for gratuity under Gratuity Act and/or they are not entitled to invoke Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of Gratuity Act. Consequently the claim and contention that benefit under Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act being better it should be made available to them cannot be sustained. 23.1 The upshot of foregoing discussion is that the respondents, being working journalists, could not have claimed gratuity in accordance with and under Gratuity Act and the claim applications under said section could not have been granted. Further, in light of the facts of the case, they would not be eligible for gratuity under Section 5 of Journalists Act. 24. 23.1 The upshot of foregoing discussion is that the respondents, being working journalists, could not have claimed gratuity in accordance with and under Gratuity Act and the claim applications under said section could not have been granted. Further, in light of the facts of the case, they would not be eligible for gratuity under Section 5 of Journalists Act. 24. In light of foregoing discussion it has emerged that while passing impugned orders the authorities failed to consider and failed to take into account above discussed aspects flowing from the provision under the Journalists Act and Gratuity Act and from the facts of the case. 24.1 When the impugned orders are examined in light of the above discussion then it comes out that the authority failed to consider and appreciate that the claimants and their demand would be governed by the provisions under Journalists Act and their claim should be considered and decided in light of the provisions under the Journalists Act, more particularly Section 5 of the Act. The authority committed error in entertaining and granting present respondent's claim on the basis of and in light of the provisions under the Gratuity Act. The authority failed to appreciate that in view of the provision under Section 5(1) of the Journalists Act the claimants would not be entitled for gratuity because they had not completed 10 years of service with the petitioner newspapers establishment and they had tendered resignation before completion of 10 years of service. The authority also failed to appreciate that even the exception carved out under clause (c) of Section 5(1) of Journalists Act would not be attracted and applicable in case of the respondent because the respondent did not claim and did not establish that they had submitted resignation on account of conscience. The authority under the Act passed impugned orders without appreciating aforesaid position with regard to the claim of the respondent and granted benefit to the respondent by erroneously disregarding objection by the newspapers establishment. The impugned orders are, therefore, not sustainable. 25. In light of foregoing discussion and for abovementioned reasons the impugned orders are not maintainable and orders deserve to be set aside and the petitions deserve to be accepted and allowed. 26. Therefore, following order is passed:- For the reasons mentioned above and in light of foregoing discussions, impugned orders are hereby set aside and the petitions are allowed. 25. In light of foregoing discussion and for abovementioned reasons the impugned orders are not maintainable and orders deserve to be set aside and the petitions deserve to be accepted and allowed. 26. Therefore, following order is passed:- For the reasons mentioned above and in light of foregoing discussions, impugned orders are hereby set aside and the petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent in all petitions. Petition allowed.