MEHTA PRAFULLABEN DALPATRAI Vs. NITIN A MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner-teacher being aggrieved of the order dated 15th March, 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Gratuity Appeal No.92 of 2001 whereby the Appellate Authority has quashed the order dated 2nd February, 2001 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Application No.17 of 1999 whereby the Controlling Authority had ordered to pay a sum of Rs.69,265=00 to the petitioner towards gratuity.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner had approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act by way of Application No.17 of 1999 wherein the respondent no.1-Management had raised a preliminary contention that the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to try the application. The Controlling Authority, after hearing the parties, was pleased to pass an order dated 23rd December, 1999, holding that the applicant, petitioner herein, had retired on 31st May, 1997andbyvirtue of Notification No.F.No.S.42013/1/95-SS,II dated 3rd April, 1997 issued by the Government of India, educational establishments are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and, therefore, the Controlling Authority is empowered to hear the application. Being aggrieved of that order, the Management had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.377 of 2000, which came to be decided by this Court (Coram: H.K.Rathod, J.) by order dated 2nd May, 2000 wherein this Court was pleased to observe that:

(3.) Mr.P.K.Jani, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that this is a matter wherein the dispute between the parties is concluded by a compromise in Review Application No.26 of 2001 on 7th May, 2001 whereby the Management had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000=00 against the order of the Controlling Authority passed in Application No.17 of 1999 on 2nd February, 2001 whereby it was directed that the Management shall pay an amount of Rs.69,265=00 with 10% simple interest thereon. The learned Advocate submitted that in that view of the matter, later pronouncement of the Full Bench affirmed by the Apex Court will not affect the rights, which were crystalised between the parties by virtue of the Compromise dated 7th May, 2001. He submitted that even if the Management entered into a compromise, not knowing the law pronounced by the Full Bench of this Court on 4th May, 2001, it does not change the situation and the present petition is required to be allowed quashing and setting aside the order dated 15th March, 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Appeal No.92 of 2001. He submitted that neither the Full Bench of this Court nor the Apex Court has made the judgements retrospectively applicable, so as to apply to the case of the petitioner, who had crystalised rights in her favour. He, therefore, submitted that this petition is required to be allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority is required to be quashed and set aside.