JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Y.S. Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties. 2. The order dated 22.5.2012 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter Act only) is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The respondent No. 1 Brij Kishore was an employee of the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. He worked there from 18.5.1956 to 30.6.1995 and retired after putting in total service of 39 years one month. At time of his retirement he was drawing salary of Rs. 3,533/- including D.A. etc. He claimed gratuity of Rs. 69,090/- on his retirement but the Nagar Nigam paid Rs. 51,035/- only. Therefore for the balance amount of Rs. 18,055/- he approached the Controlling Authority under the Act. 4. The matter was contested by the Nagar Nigam but after filing reply, it failed to appear before the Controlling Authority. Thus, the Controlling Authority by the impugned order on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by respondent No. 1 ordered for payment of the balance gratuity of Rs. 18,055/- to him with 6% interest from the date of retirement till its payment. 5. In assailing the above order, the submission of Sri Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the payment of gratuity to the employees of the Nagar Nigam is governed by the provisions of Retiral Dues and General Provident fund and Regulations, 1962 as amended in 1988. The said Rules are more beneficial than the payment of gratuity under the Act. Therefore by necessary implication the Nagar Nigam gets exempted vide Section 5 of the Act from its applicability and its employees are entitled to gratuity only according to the Regulations. 6. In support he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 29.8.2008 in Nagar Palika Parishad Muzaffarnagar v. Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 Saharanpur, 2008(5) ESC 3105 . 7. In the aforesaid case before this Court, the question which had cropped up was whether the gratuity would be payable to the employees of the non centralized services of Nagar Palika as per the provisions of the Act or as per the Regulations framed by the State Government. 8. 7. In the aforesaid case before this Court, the question which had cropped up was whether the gratuity would be payable to the employees of the non centralized services of Nagar Palika as per the provisions of the Act or as per the Regulations framed by the State Government. 8. The learned Single Judge by a detailed judgment held that the employees of the non centralized services of Nagar Mahapalika are entitled to gratuity as per the Regulations framed by the State Government and not under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 9. The aforesaid decision was in connection with the employees of the non-centralized service of the Nagar Palika and not in respect to the employees of the Nagar Nigam and as such would not apply in the present case. 10. The payment of gratuity in general is governed by the provisions of the Act and it has the overriding effect over all previous enactments by virtue of Section 14 of the Act, unless the establishment is exempted by the State Government under Section 5 of the Act. 11. In other words, all establishments as provided vide Section 1 of the Act including Nagar Nigam are covered the provisions of the Act unless exempted. 12. Section 5 of the Act lays down the power of exemption. It provides if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the employees of the establishment are receiving better benefits than those under the Act may by a notification exempt such an establishment from the operation of the Act. This means for exempting an establishment from the operation of the said Act there has to be a notification by the appropriate Government and that it should be satisfied that the employees were in receipt of benefits more beneficial than under the Act. 13. The petitioner has not pleaded or brought on record any notification issued by the appropriate Government issued under Section 5 of the Act exempting Nagar Nigam from the operation of the Act and at the same time the exact benefit permissible under the Regulations vis-a-vis those under the Act to establish that benefits under the Regulations were much more than what the petitioner would receive under the Act. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the employees of the Nagar Nigam are not outside the purview of the Act and are held entitle to gratuity under it. 15. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the employees of the Nagar Nigam are not outside the purview of the Act and are held entitle to gratuity under it. 15. Apart from the above, the dispute is only for a petty amount of Rs. 18,055/- for which the Court does not feel inclined to interfere in exercise discretionary jurisdiction. 16. The writ petition as such is held to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. ——————