Gokhale Institute of Politics v. Smt. Sudha R. Mahajan & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Undisputedly, apart from merely advancing the argument that research institute is not an educational institute, no factual foundation was laid before the Appellate Authority in support of the said contention. Obviously, research implies educating oneself in the field in which the person is conducting…
Judgment
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economic .... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Sudha R. Mahajan & Ors. .... Respondents WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7391 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.7391 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.7391 OF 2006 Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economic .... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Shubhangi A. Gupte & Ors. .... Respondents ANDANDAND WRIT PETITION NO.7392 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.7392 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.7392 OF 2006 Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economic .... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Shalini Joshi & Ors. .... Respondents Sarvasri N.A. Malunjkar i/b A.D. Patwardhan for the Petitioner in all Petitions. CORAM: CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. CORAM: DATED: DATED: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 DATED: P.C: P.C:P.C:
Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these three petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. [2]
Undisputedly, apart from merely advancing the argument that research institute is not an educational institute, no factual foundation was laid before the Appellate Authority in support of the said contention. Obviously, research implies educating oneself in the field in which the person is conducting any research. Being so, the argument that research institute does not amount to educational institution cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the authority below after taking into consideration the decision sought to be relied upon and after considering the rival contentions, has rightly held that the petitioner-institute is covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and, therefore, the impugned judgment does not disclose any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There being no case made out for interference in writ jurisdiction, the petitions are rejected. (R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/1114wpg7390.6 sjs/1114wpg7390.6 sjs/1114wpg7390.6
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Nov 2006. The bench was R M S KHANDEPARKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.