Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Mohi Ud Din Wani vs Managing Director on 17 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-SGR:225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 06.07.2026
Pronounced on:17.07.2026
Uploaded on: 17.07.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced:
Full
RP No.103/2022
GHULAM MOHI UD DIN WANI ... PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate, with
Ms. Heena Baqal, Advocate.
Vs.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, J&K SIDCO & ORS.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Waseem Gull, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) Through the medium of present review petition, the
review petitioner, who happens to be respondent No.2 to the
writ petition, has sought review of judgment dated
16.11.2021 passed by this Court in OWP No.689/2018 filed
by the respondents herein.
2) Initially, the review petitioner, who was an employee of
the Small Industries Industrial Development Corporation (for
short “SIDCO”), upon his superannuation on 30th November,
2006, was paid gratuity in the amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs by his
employer, the writ petitioner/ respondent. In the year 2012,
the review petitioner approached the J&K Industrial Tribunal-
RP No.103/2022 Page 1 of 8
2026:JKLHC-SGR:225
cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”),
by way of an application in terms of Section 33(c) of Industrial
Disputes Act 1947, read with Section 15 of the Payment of
Wages Act, for seeking recovery of balance amount of gratuity
dues. The case set up by the review petitioner before the
Tribunal was that he was entitled to Rs.3.50 lakhs on account
of gratuity in terms of the decision taken by the Board of
Directors of the SIDCO and, as such, he is entitled to balance
amount of Rs.1.00 lakh on account of gratuity along with
interest. During the pendency of the application, the review
petitioner amended his application, and claimed that he was
entitled to an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as gratuity in view of the
changed rule position.
3) The SIDCO, in its objections filed before the Tribunal,
claimed that at the time when the review petitioner had
attained the age of superannuation, the gratuity ceiling was
Rs.2.50 lakhs, which was enhanced to Rs.3.50 lakhs in the
year 2008 but the order of enhancement of gratuity has not
been given retrospective effect by the Board of Directors of the
SIDCO.
4) The Tribunal, in terms of award dated 20.12.2017, came
to the conclusion that J&K Civil Service Regulations, so far
as the same relate to payment of gratuity, are applicable to
the employees of the SIDCO and with the amendment of these
RP No.103/2022 Page 2 of 8
2026:JKLHC-SGR:225
regulations in terms of SRO 94 dated 15th April 2009, the
overall ceiling of death-cum-retirement gratuity has been
enhanced to Rs.10 lakhs with effect from 01.01.2006. On this
basis, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for the
SIDCO to withhold the enhanced amount of gratuity to
respondent No.2 as he has retired after 01.01.2006.
5) The aforesaid award came to be challenged by the
SIDCO by way of a writ petition bearing OWP No.689/2018
before this Court. Vide the judgment under review, this Court,
allowed the writ petition by holding that in terms of decision
of Board of Directors of SIDCO, the review petitioner was
entitled to maximum gratuity of Rs.2.50 lakhs, which they
have duly paid to him. It was observed by this Court that the
orders relating to payment of enhanced amount of gratuity to
the employees of the SIDCO came into effect much after the
superannuation of the review petitioner and, as such, the
same are not applicable to his case.
6) The review petitioner (who is respondent No.2 in the writ
petition) has sought review of the judgment dated
16.11.2021. Initially, in the review petition, it was urged by
the review petitioner that in terms of minutes of dated 133 rd
meeting of the Board of Directors of SIDCO held on
08.12.2015, the decision regarding the enhancement of
gratuity from Rs.3.50 lakhs to Rs.0.00 lakhs, was confirmed
RP No.103/2022 Page 3 of 8
2026:JKLHC-SGR:225
by the Board of Directors, as such, the observations of the
Writ Court that enhanced amount of gratuity cannot be
granted to the review petitioner, is contrary to the record.
However, during pendency of the review petition, it has been
amended and vide the amended review petition, another
ground has been urged by the review petitioner, by
contending that, where two provisions relating to gratuity are
in operation, the provision which confers a more beneficial
entitlement upon the employee must prevail over a provision
operating to his detriment.
7) Heard and considered.
8) It is a settled law that scope of jurisdiction of review of
an order or judgment passed by a Court is very narrow. It is
only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record or
that there is a discovery of new evidence not previously
available or a similar other reason, that a Court can review its
own order/judgment. A review petition cannot be an appeal
in disguise so as to determine the merits of the contentions
already dealt with by the Court.
9) With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now
analyze the facts of the present case. This Court, while
passing the judgment under review, has clearly observed that
the employees of SIDCO are governed by Regulation 78 of the
Regulations of 1969, as amended from time to time. It has
RP No.103/2022 Page 4 of 8
2026:JKLHC-SGR:225
been also observed that the service conditions of the
employees of the SIDCO including the payment of gratuity are
governed by its own regulations and it is only upon a decision
by the Board of Directors of the SIDCO that the rules and
regulations of the Government employees would apply to the
employees of the SIDCO with necessary modifications as per
the decision of the Board. This Court has went on to observe
that in the instant case, the Board decided to apply SRO 94
of 2009 so far as it pertains to enhancement of ceiling of
gratuity to its employees with effect from 24.05.2010 and not
from 01.01.2006. Therefore, an employee of the SIDCO, who
has retired prior to 24.05.2010, cannot claim the benefit of
enhanced gratuity at the rate of Rs.10.00 lakhs.
10) The review petitioner claims that vide Board decision
dated 08.12.2015, the decision of the sub-committee
enhancing gratuity limit from Rs.3.50 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs
has been confirmed. A perusal of the writ record would show
that decision of the sub-committee taken on 17.04.2008 was
to enhance the gratuity from Rs.2.50 lakhs to Rs.3.50 lakhs
and to enhance gratuity encashment limit of the SIDCO
employees in future at par on the lines as available to the
State Government employees and other PSUs. This is what
has been confirmed by the Board of Directors in its meeting
dated 08.12.2015. The word “future” mentioned in the
RP No.103/2022 Page 5 of 8
2026:JKLHC-SGR:225
decision of the sub-committee is significant. It means that
gratuity encashment limit available to State Government
employees would apply to the employees of the SIDCO only in
future and not to those employees who had already retired.
Since the review petitioner had attained superannuation in
the year 2006 itself and the decision to enhance the gratuity
limit of the SIDCO employees to bring it at par with State
Government employees was taken only on 07.04.2008, the
same would not apply to his case. On this ground, the review
petitioner does not have a case for review of the judgment.
11) However, there is yet another aspect of the matter which
is required to be considered. The review petitioner has
contended that where two provisions relating to gratuity are
in operation, the provision which confers a more beneficial
entitlement upon the employee must prevail over a provision
operating to his detriment. In this regard, the review
petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of Project Construction Corporation Workers
Association v. State of J&K and others (SWP No.1539/2003
decided on 06.10.2023). In the said case, this Court has, after
noticing the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 14 of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, held that the provisions of Payment
of Gratuity Act have predominance over all other rules
enactments or instruments or contracts so far as the same
RP No.103/2022 Page 6 of 8
2026:JKLHC-SGR:225
relate payment of gratuity. The Court further went on to hold
that any rule in the Gratuity Rules of an establishment, which
is in conflict with the provisions of Section 4 of the Payment
of Gratuity Act, has to be ignored if the said rule is not
beneficial to the employee, as compared to the provisions of
Payment of Gratuity Act. The Court held that if under the
provisions of the service rules of his establishment, an
employee is entitled to receive amount of gratuity which is
more than the amount of gratuity payable under the
provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, he has the option of
choosing the amount of gratuity payable under the service
rules of the said establishment.
12) Turning to the facts of the present case, as per the
regulations of the SIDCO relating to payment of gratuity, in
the year 2006 its employees were entitled to payment of
gratuity up to a maximum limit of Rs.2.50 lakhs whereas, as
per the Payment of Gratuity Act, in the year 2006, the
maximum limit of gratuity payable to an employee of an
establishment under Section 4(3) of the Payment of Gratuity
Act. As already stated, because the provisions of Payment of
Gratuity Act have predominance over the rules of an
establishment which provide for payment of gratuity,
therefore, an employee of an establishment is entitled to
payment of gratuity at the rate mentioned in Section 4(3) of
RP No.103/2022 Page 7 of 8
2026:JKLHC-SGR:225
the Payment of Gratuity Act, provided the same is more
beneficial to him.
13) The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken
into account by this Court while passing the judgment under
review. Since this Court has ignored the statutory provisions
of law as contained in Payment of Gratuity Act while passing
the judgment under review, as such, an error apparent on the
face of the record has crept in, which deserves to be corrected.
14) Accordingly, the judgment under review passed by this
court is recalled and the matter is directed to be listed for
fresh consideration on the question whether the provisions of
Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to the case of the
review petitioner and if so, whether he is entitled to enhanced
amount of gratuity. The main writ petition (OWP
No.689/2018) be listed for hearing on 10.08.2026.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar,
17.07.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the judgement is reportable: Yes/No
RP No.103/2022 Page 8 of 8
