CHAMAN LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE PANIPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was in the service of the municipality Panipat and retired from there on 30th September, 1981. It is stated that he served it for a period of 34 years but he has not been paid the gratuity upto date. Consequently, he filed a Civil Miscellaneous application and prayed that the respondent be directed to pay the gratuity to him. Notice of the application was given to the Municipality which has contested it and pleaded that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act (referred to as the 'Gratuity Act') are not applicable to it and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity.

(2.) The only question that arises for determination is, whether the provisions of the Gratuity Act are applicable to the Municipalities in Haryana. In order to determine the question it is necessary to notice section 1(3)(b) of the Gratuity Act, which reads as follows :-

(3.) It is evident from a bare reading of the section that the Gratuity Act applies to all establishments which are covered by any law relating to the establishments in a State. If there are more than one statutes in a State dealing with the said term, the provisions of the Gratuity Act can be read in conjunction with any of such statutes. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (referred to as the 'Wages Act') deals with establishments and is applicable to all the States including the State of Haryana. Therefore, the provisions of Wages Act can be taken into consideration to find out whether a Municipality in Haryana is an establishment or not. The term "establishment" has been defined in the Wages Act in section 2(ii)(g) as follows :-