AMRAVATI NAGAR VACHANALAYA AMRAVATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the respective counsel for the parties.

(2.) Rule. By consent rule is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

(3.) The petition presented by the employee raising inception to the order passed by Respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner of Labour. Respondent No. 4 was in the employment of the Petitioner-institution for a period between 1963 to 2002. After attaining the age of superannuation, the employee presented an application to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming disbursement of gratuity amount along with the interest. The application tendered by the employee was opposed on several grounds. It is contended that apart from the applicant-employee there are several employees in the employment of the Petitioner but the establishment did not employ more than ten employees at any point of time. It is also canvassed that the employer-establishment cannot be covered under the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is specifically contended that the Petitioner herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it cannot be described as an establishment or commercial establishment within the meaning of definition provided under the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948. It is thus contended that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be invoked against the Petitioner thereby holding the Respondent-employee entitled to seek recovery of amount towards the gratuity. So far as the question in respect of employing more than ten employees at the relevant time, the objection was specifically raised by the employer before the original authority contending that the establishment did not employ more than ten employees and as such cannot be held responsible for payment of gratuity. This aspect has been considered by the fact finding authority and after considering the facts placed on record a finding of fact has been recorded that the employer had employed more than ten employees during the period in respect of coverage claimed by the employee. The findings based on appreciation of evidence recorded by the fact finding Authority, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has been confirmed by the appellate Authority and the Additional Commissioner of Labour. The findings reached by the Appellate Authority as well as the Controlling Authority on appreciation of evidence that the employer employed more than ten employees and as such the establishment can be brought under the purview of provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act need not be interfered with in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.