NATHI RAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE SECRETARY LOCAL BODIES, DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. No. 2261 of 1987 is allowed and Civil Writ Petition No. 3408 of 1986 is accepted. The writ petition is squarely covered by the ratio of the decision by a Division Bench of this Court in Kundan Lal Narang, Superintendent/Tax Superintendent (Retired), Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar v. The State of Haryana, (1987) 92 P. L. R. 431 wherein it has been held that every Municipality/Municipal Committee is an 'establishment' as defined in Clause (b) of Sub -section (3) of Section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) and the employees of the municipal committees are to be paid gratuity on their retirement in terms of the provisions of the Act.

(2.) MR . Rajesh Chaudhry, learned Counsel for the Respondent -Municipal Committee, sought to contend that a Municipality is not an 'establishment'. This point has been decided against him in Kundan Lal Narang's case (supra).

(3.) IT has been contended by Mr. Chaudhry that the decision in Kundan Lal Nanang's case (supra) does not flay down the correct law. Sitting singly, I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench. This plea also cannot prevail.