MAHILA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the common questions involved and for the submissions made in consensus by learned Counsel for the parties, these three writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner society has filed these writ petitions with the submissions that the petitioner is running various educational institutions and is receiving 90% grand-in-aid from the Government of Rajasthan. The private respondent in each of these writ petitions had served in the petitioner-institution and upon retirement claimed payment of gratuity and then filed respective applications under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. The applications so filed by the private respondents were allowed on different dates by the Tribunal. The private respondents thereafter filed applications under Section 27-A of the Act of 1989 for execution of the order passed in their favour. In such execution applications, the petitioner took an objection that the private respondents did not answer to the definition of employee under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; and that the execution applications were not maintainable for want of a decree of civil court.

(3.) By similar nature orders dated 19.02.2005 passed in relation to each of the execution case, the learned executing court has proceeded to reject the objections submitted by the petitioner and has accepted the prayer for execution of the order passed by the Tribunal but has directed the private respondents to verify and produce specific computation of the amount due and payable. The orders dated 19.02.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Udaipur City (South) Udaipur have been challenged in these writ petitions. This Court issued show cause notice in each of the petitions on 14.03.2005 and by way of interim order stayed effect and operation of the impugned order dated 19.02.2005 on the condition of the petitioner making payment of 10% of the amount of gratuity to the respondent No. 6 in each writ petition.