RUKMANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Smt. Rukmani has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the respondents to pay her the gratuity with interest in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner was working as Sweeper on regular basis in the Municipal Committee, Sonepat since 1950. She retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation in 1981. She was not paid any gratuity at the time of retirement either under the Act or under any other Statute, Rule and Regulation.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondent Municipal Committee is covered by the definition of Establishment as given under Section 1 sub-section (3) of the Act and the petitioner also falls under the definition of 'Employee' as given under Section 2(e) of the said Act. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent-Municipal Committee is liable to pay gratuity to all its employees, who retired from service after enforcement of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In support of his claim, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kundan Lal Narang v. State of Haryana through Secretary to Government, Haryana, Local Self Department, Chandigarh and another 1987-2 (92)P.L.R. 431.