LOURDES HOSPITAL Vs. ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a hospital in whose employment the 1st respondent remained from 3.7.1968 to 31.12.2005. Admittedly the petitioner was superannuated on 31.12.2005 and he was paid gratuity of Rupees Two Lakhs. Alleging that the quantum of gratuity was far lesser than that prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Gratuity Act"), the 1st respondent was before the Controlling Authority, which passed Exhibit P3 order, computing the gratuity payable as per the Gratuity Act at Rs.3,50,000/- and directing payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with 10% interest from 22.03.2006; being the date of filing of the claim.

(2.) The proceedings thereafter are not very relevant. Suffice it to say that the said order was affirmed, evidenced by Exhibit P8 appellate order. The factum of employment in the hospital is not disputed. The dispute is only with respect to whether the petitioner is an establishment covered under the Gratuity Act.

(3.) The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Gratuity Act makes it applicable to 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, by Section 1(3)(b). Hence, necessarily there being an enactment with respect to the shops and establishments for the State of Kerala, being the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Shops Act"), one has to look at the definition of "commercial establishment" in the said enactment to understand as to which establishments are covered under the Gratuity Act. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner admittedly being a charitable institution, would not come under the definition of "commercial establishment". In any event, looking at the words employed in the definition of "commercial establishment", or more specifically the categories of establishments referred to therein and the class of employment, definitely a "hospital" was not intended to be covered under the said enactment. That being so, it is the contention that the definition in the Gratuity Act being by way of "reference" as distinguished from "incorporation"; only those establishments covered under the Shops Act could be brought under the establishments to which the Gratuity Act applies.