GODHARA SARVAJANIK SHIKSHAN MANDAL Vs. DIMPLEBEN BHRUPESHKUMAR SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15983 of 2019.

(2.) The facts in brief are that according to the petitioner- appellant, respondent no. 1, is a relative of one of the trustees. After clearing the SSC examination, while pursuing her graduation from Maharaja Sayajirao University, Vadodara, she intended to gain teaching experience. As a result of this, only for that purpose, she was allowed to attend the school namely, Dr. Chamanlal Mehta Primary School, Anaj Mahajan Primary School and Rotary English Medium Primary School. Thereafter, upon completion of B.Ed., studies, respondent no. 1 joined another school and, according to the appellant, approached respondent no. 5 by submitting her Form No.1. An amount of gratuity was claimed from the appellant - Trust. A case was registered as Case No. 116 of 2016 before the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner and without considering the objection with regard to maintainability and dehors the provisions, particularly, Section 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (the "Act" for short) the authority directed the appellant - petitioner to pay an amount of gratuity to the extent of Rs.1,07,885/- (Rupees One lakh Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Five only) with 10% interest. It was also agitated by the appellant - petitioner that respondent no. 1 approached the authority i.e. respondent no. 5 after almost a period of 100 days delay and thereto, without filing any application for condonation of delay. Respondent no. 1 raised the claim on the premise that her last drawn salary, when she said to have resigned on 02.05.2016, was Rs.9,000/- per month. The appellant - petitioner has also stated that the said resignation was also not in consonance with Section 40(c) of the Act and was inoperative and non-effective. There is no employee and employer relationship. Resultantly, a petition was filed to set aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2019 passed by respondent no. 5.

(3.) It is further the case of the appellant - petitioner that the learned Single Judge out-rightly without considering the aforesaid issues, has erroneously passed an order on 25.09.02019, dismissing the petition and directed that the amount which has been crystalized, to be paid within two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the present order. Further, consequentially, the rate of interest on non-payment is also fixed. It is this order, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, which is made the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal, before us.