MOTEL SUNNY Vs. NARESH SHANKARRAO MHAISKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Puranik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petition questions the judgment dtd. 26/3/2018 passed by the Controlling Authority under Sec. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act [for short "The PG Act"] whereby the claim made by the respondents for gratuity has been granted (pg. 69). The appeal there against by the present petitioner under Sec. 7(7) of the PG Act, has been dismissed by the judgment dtd. 19/10/2019 (pg. 111).

(3.) Mr. Puranik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a jurisdictional lacunae inasmuch as there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner at any point of time had ever employed more than 10 persons, which is the basic requirement for attracting the provisions of the PG Act. It is also contended by him that merely because the petitioner establishment had sought registration under the Employees' Provident Fund Act (in short the EPF Act ), that by itself would not lead to a presumption that there were more than 10 persons employed by the petitioner-establishment, in view of the provisions of Sec. 1(4) of the EPF Act. It is further contended that though material has been brought on record to indicate that the establishment by name Hotel Ashok had more than 20 employees, that was a separate establishment altogether inasmuch as it was the proprietary concern (pg.51) of the petitioner, whereas Motel Sunny was the partnership firm (pg. 49) and the mixing of both the establishments for the purpose of applying the PG Act did not arise at all. He therefore submits that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and needs to be quashed and set aside.