ST EDWARDS SCHOOL Vs. INDU KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1683 of 2009.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No.1 was engaged as English Teacher in appellant's No.1 school on 1.3.1977. She retired on 31.12.2005. She was paid a sum of Rs 68,850/- by way of gratuity on 6.6.2006. Respondent No.1 made a representation on 16.6.2006 that the entire period of 28 years and 10 months has not been taken into consideration while paying the gratuity. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Authority on 16.11.2006. The complaint was allowed by the Labour Officer-cum-Controlling Officer on 29.12.2007. According to the Controlling Authority, respondent No.1 was entitled to gratuity amount for 29 years' service. Since respondent No.1 had already been paid a sum of Rs 68,850/-, the Controlling Authority directed appellants to release the balance payment of Rs 66,669/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of respondent No.1. Appellant No.1 preferred an appeal before the Joint Labour Commissioner-cumAppellate Authority against the order dated 29.12.2007. He allowed the same on 18.11.2008. Respondent No.1 assailed order dated 18.11.2008 by way of CWP No. 1683 of 2009. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 4.8.2011 and directed appellant No.1 school to pay the balance amount of Rs 48,600/- to respondent No.1 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Learned Single Judge further ordered that the amount be paid on or before 31.10.2011, failing which school was liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The appellant No.1-school was also burdened with costs of Rs 5,000/-. It is in these circumstances the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by appellant No.1 and Shimla Chandigarh Educational Society through Fr. John Bosco, Principal, St. Edward's School, Shimla.

(3.) Mr. K.D. Sood has vehemently argued that learned Single Judge has erred by allowing the writ petition on 4.8.2011. He has supported the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority. According to him, scheme, for the first time, was introduced in the appellant's school in the year 1988. Respondent No.1 has been paid the amount of gratuity by way of gesture. Mr. K.D. Sood has argued that respondent No.1 did not fall within the ambit of section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.