National Bal Bhawan vs Anjali Bindra
2019 Latest Caselaw 6021 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 27.11.2019

+     W.P.(C) 10027/2019 & CM APPL. 41509/2019

      NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN                            ..... Petitioner
                        versus
      VANDANA                                        ..... Respondent
+     W.P.(C) 10050/2019 & CM APPL. 41579/2019

      NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN                            ..... Petitioner
                        versus
      ROOPA SHARMA                                   ..... Respondent
+     W.P.(C) 10056/2019 & CM APPL. 41590/2019

      NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN                            ..... Petitioner
                        versus
      RAJ BALA                                       ..... Respondent
+     W.P.(C) 10058/2019 & CM APPL. 41594/2019

      NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN                            ..... Petitioner
                        versus
      RENUKA AGGARWAL                                ..... Respondent

+     W.P.(C) 10059/2019 & CM APPL. 41597/2019

      NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN                            ..... Petitioner
                        versus
      SHAILAJA SHARMA                                ..... Respondent



W.P.(C) 10027/2019 & conn. matters                            Page 1 of 9
 +     W.P.(C) 10060/2019 & CM APPL. 41600/2019

      NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN                                ..... Petitioner
                         versus
      ANJALI BINDRA                                      ..... Respondent
+     W.P.(C) 10066/2019 & CM APPL. 41612/2019

      NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN                                ..... Petitioner

                         versus
      UMA SHARMA                                         ..... Respondent

      Present:    Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate with Mr. Ram Gupta and
                  Mr.R. Gowrishankar, Advocates for petitioner.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA

                            JUDGMENT

A.K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

The instant seven (07) writ petitions have come to be preferred by the

petitioner-National Bal Bhawan assailing the order dated 11.02.2019 passed

by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Delhi, whereby, the

petitioners have been granted gratuity of Rs.2,21,538/-, Rs.1,84,038/-,

Rs.8,827/-, Rs.2,35,386/-, Rs.1,90,385/-, Rs.2,28,462/- & Rs.2,35,385/-

respectively, along with simple interest @ 10% p.a. as provided for under

Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in short, 'the Act,

1972'.

2. In view of the fact that a common question of law as regards the

applicability of the Act, 1972 is agitated, all the petitions are taken up for

hearing together.

3. In the submissions of Mr. Rajappa, ld. counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner is entirely funded by the Ministry of Human Resource and

Development and therefore, it falls within the definition of State as

enshrined under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is thus contended that the

respondents are deemed to hold a post under the Central Government and

thereby, excluded from the category of the employees to whom the Act,

1972 applies. The thrust of his submissions is founded on the definition of

employee as provided for under Sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act,

1972.

4. Sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 reads as follows:

"2(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does

not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity."

(emphasis supplied)

5. When Mr.Rajappa adverts to the foregoing definition of employee as

provided for under the Act, 1972, on being queried during the course of

hearing, he is at pains to explain the context in which the post held by the

respondents can be construed to be a post under the Central Government.

More so, when, undisputedly, the petitioner is a society registered under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860 and an autonomous body. Mere funding or

assuming, entire funding for running the affairs of such society, cannot

change the character or identity of the Society being an independent

autonomous body. How come then, rendering of services to such

autonomous body by the respondents be construed to be a post under the

Central Government, Mr.Rajappa, ld. counsel for the petitioner, is at pains to

explain. In plain words, the respondents cannot be said to be holding a post

under the Central Government. They are also not shown to be governed by

any other Act or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity. In the

given factual conspectus, how can the respondents be said to be excluded

from the applicability of the Act, 1972 adverting to the definition of

'employee' as defined in Sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972,

cannot be understood. It does not appear that Mr. Rajappa did not

understand such simple way of looking at the given provision. He seems to

be constrained by the instructions to have a decision on merits by the Court.

His difficulty can be understood being a counsel with a limited brief. I am

constraint to observe so, in view of the fact that at the threshold of the matter

coming up for hearing, the Court had expected the petitioner to look into the

given context and reconsider.

6. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner, the

reliance is placed upon the observations made in 'Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid

Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.' to contend that when the Central Government has

control on the working of the society, it is merely a projection of the

Government inasmuch as it is the voice of the State. There cannot be any

dispute about the observation so made but the context in which it comes

cannot be overlooked. The said observations were made in the context of a

legal entity, to consider, as to whether such body was to be construed to be

an instrumentality or an agency of the State as enshrined under Article 12 or

not. There cannot be any difference of opinion in holding that the petitioner

is an instrumentality or agency of the State, but, equally, it cannot be

forgotten that the petitioner is an autonomous body registered under the

Societies Registration Act. A Society or a Corporate Body, which is created

by a Statute or wholly funded by the funds provided by the Union / State and

/ or its affairs are substantially to achieve the public functions, is to be

treated to be an instrumentality or agency of the State for the purposes of

maintaining an action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

nothing beyond. The independent character of such Body or Society does

not change otherwise. The contention raised to the contrary by Mr.Rajappa

is thus, wholly misconceived and is rejected.

7. Undisputedly, the respondents were offered appointment by the

petitioner in its own rights. There is a relationship of employer and

employee amongst the petitioner and the respondents is also not in question.

Petitioner is an establishment under the Act, 1972, also not being in question

and sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 not coming to the aid to

the petitioner, there is no reason as to why, the respondents would not be

covered within the purview of the Act, 1972.

8. In the other limb of his submissions, though Mr. Rajappa, ld. counsel

for the petitioner contended that the respondents were part time employees

and therefore, the Act, 1972 was not applicable to the respondents, he fails

to point out any statutory provision, rule or regulation, in support of such

submissions. The Court does not find merit even in the submission so made.

An employee is an employee, whether on casual, ad-hoc or part time basis.

The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any

specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-

hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the

subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of

wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2, which reads as under:

"wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance."

9. The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of

Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the

employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis

of the wages / emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.

10. During the course of hearing, Mr.Rajappa also submitted that the

respondents were paid only the consolidated wages besides conveyance. The

impugned order takes note of the consolidated salaries of the respondents as

Rs.300-20-400 p.m. w.e.f. 11.11.1986, Rs.400-20-500 p.m. w.e.f.

15.06.1987, Rs.400-20-500 p.m. w.e.f. 15.05.1990, Rs.200/- p.m. w.e.f.

11.05.1984, Rs.200/- p.m. w.e.f. 05.11.1983, Rs.200/- p.m. w.e.f.

11.05.1984, Rs.200/- p.m. w.e.f. 16.05.1983. It would thus be seen, for few

of the respondents, who are equally stated to be part-time employees, the

petitioner has provided for the increments, apparently, on yearly basis. All

of them, undisputedly, have rendered their uninterrupted services for more

than five (05) years to be eligible for the gratuity under the Act, 1972. Most

of them have rendered services for almost 30 years or more and they have

come to be declined the entitlement of gratuity, that too, by a Society, which

is stated to be wholly funded by the Central Government. They are not

entitled to pension as they are not the regular employees under the Central or

the State Government nor the society on its part is shown to have any such

scheme. Fact however remains that the payment of gratuity is a Statutory

liability under the Act, 1972. Thus, for the respondents services having been

availed for over the years, most of them having been the employees of the

petitioner for decades, denial of gratuity to them, is to leave them in lurch,

when they superannuated. What to talk of bread and butter, they are left

even without bread, a basic necessity for survival. It is a reflection of total

insensitivity to their just cause, which, the petitioner has failed to advert to,

ignoring the genesis of the beneficial legislation like the Act, 1972.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs

of Rs.20,000/- each, in all Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Thousand

Only), to be deposited with The Blind Relief Association, Lala Lajpat Rai

Road (Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg), Near The Oberoi Hotel, New Delhi-

11003, within four weeks from today. Pending applications stand disposed

of.

12. Registry to list the matter before the Court in the event, receipt of

deposit of costs is not filed within five weeks from today.

13. At this stage, Mr. Rajappa, ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that

the time to release the gratuity may be extended. Time to release the gratuity

is extended for two weeks from today.

Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

A. K. CHAWLA, J

NOVEMBER 27, 2019 nn