HARI KRISHAN CHANDER WHORA Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Kumar Rathi, holding brief of Sri R.D. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

(2.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the orders dated August 16, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated April 30, 1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The sole point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is admitted case of the parties that the Payment of Gratuity Act has been amended by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1984. Section 6 of the Amending Act specially provides as under:

(3.) The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have rejected the case of the petitioner solely on the ground that since the petitioner admittedly has retired on February 25, 1981 whereas Amendment Act came into force in February, 1984. Therefore, the ceiling of Rs. 1000/- cannot be made applicable for the purposes of calculation of Gratuity so far as the petitioner is concerned. The order of the Prescribed Authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority as stated above.