(1.) The issue which arises in this writ petition is whether the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1971 is applicable to the Pune Cantonment board and whether it is bound to pay gratuity under that Act. The petitioners contend that they are covered by the Central Civil Services Rules and, therefore, the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable to their establishment. According to the petitioners, the respondent employees have exercised their option to claim the retiral benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Despite such an option having been exercised by the employees, they filed applications under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act claiming gratuity. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, allowed the applications. The appeals preferred by the Cantonment Board Pune have been dismissed. Hence the present writ petition.
(2.) In the case of Poona Cantonment Board vs. S. K. Das and ors. , reported in 7993 (II) CLR 731, this Court has held that the Act is applicable to the cantonment Board which is a local authority and, therefore, the gratuity will be payable to the employees under the Act. The qualifying test under section l (3) (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act being satiesfied, it was held that the employees are entitled to gratuity payable under this Act.
(3.) In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Dharam Prakash sharma and anr. , reported in 1998 (II) CLR 574, the Supreme Court considered a case where the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had adopted the Central Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Gratuity was claimed by its employees under the act. The Court held that the employees of the Corporation would be entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Act notwithstanding the fact that the Central civil Services (Pension) Rules have been made applicable to them for the purposes of determining the pension It was further held that the employees could not claim gratuity available under the Pension Rules.