Delhi High Court
M/S Indian Environmental Society vs Dr. L.M. Saxena on 8 February, 2010
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 11684/2005
% Judgment delivered on: 08.02.2010
M/s Indian Environmental Society ...... Petitioner
Through: Ajay Kumar,Advocate
versus
Dr. L.M. Saxena ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.Deb Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.7.2002 passed by
the Controlling Authority and the order dated 3.3.2005 passed by the Ld.
Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby directions
were given to the petitioner management to pay the gratuity along with
interest to the respondent workman amounting to Rs.98,031/- along with
simple interest @10% per annum from 30.11.1999 till the date of actual
payment.
2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the
respondent filed a petition against the petitioner before the Ld. controlling
Authority claiming a sum of (i) Rs. 18,880 as salary for the month of
November, 1999 and (ii) Rs. 98,030 on account of gratuity. The said claim of
the respondent was contested by the petitioner and vide order dated
5.7.2002 the learned Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay Rs.
98,031 as gratuity with interest @10% within 30 days to the respondent.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
Appellate Authority and vide order dated 3.3.2005 the same was dismissed,
hence the present petition.
3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per
the notification in the Gazette of India dated September 6, 1997/BHADRA
15, 1919(Part-II-Section 3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of
1972), the Central Government extended the application of the Act to the
trusts and societies under the Societies Registration Act w.e.f. 06.09.1997
i.e. the date of the notification and therefore the respondent workman who
was appointed with the petitioner on 01.10.1990 and resigned on
30.11.1999 would not be entitled to the benefit of said notification. Counsel
further submitted that even the respondent workman had failed to prove on
record that 10 persons were employed with the petitioner on the relevant
date.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties.
5. The case of the respondent before the said Controlling Authority
was that he was appointed with the petitioner management on 1.10.1990
and had resigned on 30.11.1999 after being in service for a period of 9 years
and two months with his last drawn salary @ 18,880/-. It cannot be lost
sight of the fact that The Payment of Gratuity Act is a piece of social
legislation to protect the weaker sections of the society. Gratuity under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is no longer in the realm of charity but a
statutory right given to the employee. The underlying object being that long
service carries with it an expectation of appreciation from the employer and
a gracious financial assistance to tide over post employment difficulties. So
far the applicability of the said Act vis-à-vis the respondent workman is
concerned, I am of the considered view that on the date of resignation of the
respondent the said Act after being extended by way of notification, became
applicable to the petitioner and the benefit will be extended even for the
period prior to the date of the notification. I, therefore, do not find any
merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent
workman was appointed in the year 1990 therefore he would not be entitled
to the benefit of the said statute, once he had resigned after the date when
the said notification was extended to societies and trusts where 10 or more
persons were employed. Hence, this measure of social security cannot be
denied in the garb of technical fetters.
6. With regard to the other contention of the counsel for the petitioner
that the respondent workman had failed to prove that there were 10 or more
employees employed on the relevant date of the said notification, I find no
substance in the said submission of the management as the respondent
workman in his cross-examination clearly stated that there were 11
employees working with the petitioner organization.
7. Hence I find the present petition devoid of any merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.
February 08, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR,J
pkv
