SUKHDEO B ALKUNTE Vs. LALJI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari against the order dated 24th June, 2002 and 9th June, 2003 passed by the Controlling authority and the Appellate Authority i. e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(2.) THE broad facts are not in disputes. The first respondent was employed by one Shivram Alkunte who carried on business as a sole proprietor in the firm name and style of M/s. S. M. Alkunte. He was a contractor and had during his life time certain contracts with Tata Electric Company. Shivram alkunte expired on 8th August, 1989.

(3.) IT is the first respondent's case, and I will assume for the moment it is correct, that one Mohan Alkunte, Shivram's nephew took over his business. In the first respondents' application under the said Act, the petitioner was opponent No. l and Mohan was Opponent No. 2. The first respondents' contention is that Mohan Alkunte continued the business of Shivram. In fact in law, this would be a separate employment with a different employer. As far as the contracts with Tata Electric Company are concerned, the same were admittedly not even transferred by Tata Electric Company to Mohan.