ANDHJAN VIVIDHLAXI TALIM KENDRA Vs. PUSHPABEN N CHANDALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. D. H. Vaghela. learned Advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. D. A. Bambhania, learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.s. 2 and 3, in each of these three petitions.

(2.) The petitioner is one and the same and the respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions was the employee of the petitioner. The orders, passed by the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 against the petitioner to pay the gratuity to the respondent No. 1 and which have been confirmed by the appellate authority, are being challenged in these three petitions. Hence, these three petitions are heard together with consent of parties and they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The petitioner-Andhjan Vividhlaxi Talim Kendra is a Public Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The respondent in Petition No. 8124 of 1997 was working in the workshop of the petitioner, whereas, the respondent No. 1 in each of Petition Nos. 8123 of 1997 and 8125 of 1997 was working in the hostel section of the petitioner. The petitioner is having about 106 persons as trainees. Out of these 106 persons. 80 persons are totally blind whereas 26 persons are partially blind and physically handicapped. It is claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is imparting training to the said 106 students in weaving, binding note-books and preparing register. The production which come on account of said training is being sold. It is claim of the petitioner that petitioner is not an establishment under the provisions of Sec. 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and consequently, it could not be fall within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972. It is contended that petitioner is not a commercial establishment and is not an establishment within the meaning of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. It is, therefore, contended that the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 in holding the petitioner liable to pay the gratuity to the respondent No. 1 in each petition and which has been confirmed by the respondent No. 2 is illegal and invalid. Petitions, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.