ARPAN EDUCATION TRUST Vs. ARUNABEN BABUBHAI MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr.A.Y. Kogje, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.

(2.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 07.08.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by which the Appellate Authority has quashed and set aside the order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent teacher gratuity of Rs.1,08,976.15, within a period of 30 days with 10% simple interest from 31.12.2009.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the said settlement, the Tribunal has passed an order on 01.08.2003 and it has been observed in Para-5 of the judgment that "against the outstanding amount a full and final settlement has been arrived at between the parties in Rs.5,61,000/-". As per the said full and final settlement, the respondent has received Rs.5,61,000/-. The Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the fact that against the outstanding amount including P.F., there was a full and final settlement between the parties and the respondent has received Rs.5,61,000/- against the full and final settlement. At the relevant time, the Payment and Gratuity Act was not applicable to teachers and therefore, there was no question of mentioning the amount with regard to gratuity in the settlement pursis, but only because the Payment and Gratuity Act was made applicable to teachers in 2009, the respondent is not entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. Though as per full and final settlement between the parties before the Tribunal and though the respondent has received Rs.5,61,000/- as full and final settlement on the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Appellate Authority has without considering this fact passed an order directing the school to pay the gratuity amount and therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is unjust and illegal and therefore, the petition is required to be allowed. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board, Vadodara Vs. Balvantsinh S. Rahevar and others reported in 2009(4) GLR 3328, wherein the Court has held in Paras-16 and 16.1 as under: