Shri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Trust and Hospital v. Controlling Authority & Ors.

Shri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Trust and Hospital v. Controlling Authority and others .. Petitioner .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The management is before this court impugning the order dated

4.4.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the Authority under the Act holding the petitioner liable to pay gratuity to respondent No.2-workman, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 joined service of the petitioner on 4.7.1983 as Laboratory Technician. He worked there till 22.11.2003, the date on which he retired on superannuation. Thereafter, he was employed on contract basis for a period of two years. He applied to the Authority for payment of gratuity under the Act. Vide order dated 30.9.2009, the Authority directed the petitioner to pay gratuity to respondent No. 2 without considering the contention raised by the petitioner that in fact the Act was adopted by the petitioner by passing a resolution on 25.8.2006 and respondent No.

2 having retired from service before that date, he was not entitled to the benefits under the Act. Even the C.W.P. No. 14837 of 2012 [2] appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 4.4.2012. The solitary contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that unless the Act is adopted by an institution/establishment, the same cannot be enforced against it. In the present case, the Act came into force in the year 1972. The establishment in question came into existence later on. The same became applicable in the case of the petitioner only w.e.f. 25.8.2006 when it was adopted. The adoption of the Act was not with retrospective effect, hence, the claim made by respondent No. 2 was not tenable. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find the contention raised by him that an Act of the Parliament which extends to whole of India to certain specified establishments, as defined under the Act, will become applicable to an establishment which comes into existence after the Act was enforced only if it is adopted by it, is totally misconceived.

In support of such a frivolous argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any case law. No contention was raised that the petitioner is an establishment which is not employing 10 or more persons, hence, not covered under the Act. A finding has been recorded by the Appellate Authority to the effect that there are about 1,000 employees working with the petitioner. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed being totally frivolous and misconceived. The petitioner is burdened with costs of ` 20,000/- which shall be deposited on or before

31.10.2012 with Punjab State Legal Services Authority. Proof be submitted with the Registry of this Court. If the order is not complied with, the matter be placed before the Court.

7.9.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge