JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard counsel for the petitioner. Both the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the appellate authority have, by their concurring orders at Annexure-2 and 3 dated 8th October 2013 and 27th May 2014 impugned herein, held the petitioner management liable to pay the difference of gratuity amount of Rs. 1,73,400/- within 30 days failing which they would be liable to pay simple interest @ 10% over the amount for the period from 1st April 2005 to 30th July 2010 during which period the company''s quarter was retained by the respondent no.1 even after his retirement on 28th February 2005. The management had withheld the gratuity amount on account of the retention of the quarter by the employee even after his retirement for over a period of five years. 2. Under the provisions of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 the amount of gratuity can be withheld on the grounds enumerated therein which are quoted herein below :- "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) - (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee [may be wholly or partially forfeited] - (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment." 3. There are no departmental proceedings either pending against the employee for any major misconduct. Petitioner-management did not even obtain permission from the controlling authority in writing for the delayed payment on any count before the controlling authority. Though a plea was taken by the management that such retention of gratuity was permissible under the SAIL Gratuity Rules but the same cannot override the central legislation in view of the overriding provisions contained at Section-14 of the Act of 1972 also reproduced hereunder :- "14. Act to override other enactments, etc. Though a plea was taken by the management that such retention of gratuity was permissible under the SAIL Gratuity Rules but the same cannot override the central legislation in view of the overriding provisions contained at Section-14 of the Act of 1972 also reproduced hereunder :- "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." 4. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill v. BCCL & Anr. as reported in (2007) 1 SCC 663 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that management may be at least granted liberty to realise the penal rent in accordance with law for the period during which the official quarter was retained unauthorisedly by the employee - respondent no.1 after his retirement. There cannot be any divergence on the aforesaid proposition. If the employee had retained the official quarter unauthorisedly after his retirement, it is always open to the organisation to realise the rent and penal rent as per the relevant standing order or rules applicable in the organisation. 6. However, the impugned orders do not appear to suffer from any legal or factual infirmity for the reasons discussed herein above. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.