WADHWAN MAHAJAN PANJARAPOLE Vs. B D BHAVASAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Panjarapole operating within the District of Surendranagar in and around Wadhwan City. It is dealing mainly with taking care of disabled animals as set out in its Constitution annexed to the petition as Annexure 'A'-page 13. A question arose whether its employee is entitled to payment of gratuity under the Act having similar name Ponimum Act, 1972. The authority under the Act has decided in favour of the employee and the matter was carried in Appeal provided under the said Act and there also. the present petitioner lost.

(2.) As could be expected in the aforesaid background, the moot question agitated in the petition is whether the said Gratuity Act of 1972 applies to the petitioner or not ?

(3.) In sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 1 the applicability of the Act is specified and there are three sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) mentioned therein. Admittedly, if at all the petitioner is covered by the Act, it will fall within the purview of clause (b) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 1 of the said Act. The said clause (b) reads as under "Sec. I(3)(b):- Every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to Shops and Establishment in a State in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding 12 months;" The aforesaid definition refers to an establishment within the meaning of any State law. For this purpose, reference will have to be made to the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The commercial establishment to which the Act applies is in sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 2 which reads as under :