- (1.) In this group of petitions the petitioner is common, respondent no.1 is teacher and respondent no.2 is the Appellate Authority, who passed the impugned orders in various appeals being Appeal No.7 of 2014, Appeal No.8 of 2014, Appeal No.9 of 2014 and Appeal No.10 of 2014 respectively on 21.08.2014, under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Controlling Authority dated 25.11.2013, wherein the Controlling Authority directed the petitioner, herein, to pay the gratuity amount to the respondents within a period of 30 days from the date of the order alongwith 10% simple interest from the date of application till the payment is made. Hence, all these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Facts in brief leading to filing this group of petitions, as could be gathered from memo and documents, could be described as under; 2.1. The petitioner school is engaged in imparting education to the students studying in Standard I to VIII and is managed by a trust. It has around 23 teaching as well as non teaching staffs. The respondents were appointed as Assistant Teachers and they superannuated on attaining the age of retirement i.e. 58 years. 2.2 The relevant details regarding the respondent teachers about progress of their gratuity cases are as under; JUDGEMENT_169_LAWS(GJH)10_2015.jpg JUDGEMENT_169_LAWS(GJH)10_20151.jpg 2.3 The respondents were, after attaining the age of superannuation, submitted application for gratuity in Form -I to the petitioner school stating their date of joining and date of superannuation. They also submitted application being Application No. 595 of 2010, 596 of 2010, 598 of 2010 and 594 of 2010 respectively to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming their gratuity amounts alongwith 10% simple interest. 2.4 The petitioner school submitted its written statement before the Controlling Authority and raised preliminary objections about the maintainability of the said applications and non -joinder of necessary party. The petitioner school had submitted another application for amendment of written statement raising contention that the respondent teachers were not an 'Employee' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act prior to 03.04.1997 and they had not completed 5 years of service as provided under Section 4(1) of the said Act. 2.5 The respondent teachers had submitted their affidavit reiterating their date of joining, date of superannuation and their last drawn wages. The secretary of the petitioner school had also filed affidavit stating that the respondents were working in the school from 01.06.1971 to 31.05.2010, 16.08.1971 to 31.10.2007, 02.07.1962 to 31.05.2001 and 22.06.1973 to 31.10.1998 respectively and as the respondents were not covered under section 2(e) of the Act prior to 03.04.1997, they were not entitled to gratuity under the said Act. 2.6 Thereafter respondent teachers had submitted their written arguments before the Controlling Authority claiming Rs.4,37,723/ -, Rs.3,07,114/ -, Rs.2,06,212.15 ps and Rs.1,01,221/ - respectively as gratuity amount alongwith 10% interest and cost of Rs.2,000/ -. The petitioner school had also submitted its written arguments stating that in view of judgments of the Supreme Court in case of Ahmedabad Private Primary Teacher Association Vs. Administrative Officer and others, Management of Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. K.G.Devessar and judgments of other High Courts, the respondents will not be entitled for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 prior to 03.04.1997. 2.7 The Controlling Authority on 25.11.2013 ordered the petitioner school to pay Rs.4,37,723/ -, Rs.3,07,114.50ps, Rs. 2,06,212.05ps and Rs.1,01,221/ - respectively to the respondent teachers as gratuity and 10% simple interest w.e.f. the date of their applications i.e. on 20.08.2010 and 13.09.2010 within 30 days from the date of the order. 2.8 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Controlling Authority, the present petitioner preferred Appeal under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Appellate Authority being Gratuity Appeal No.7 of 2014, 8 of 2014, 9 of 2014 and 10 of 2014 respectively. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 21.08.2014 confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. Hence, the present petitions.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned passed by the Appellate Authority is based on inferences not warranted by facts and presumptions and not permitted by law. He submitted that the order impugned is not only improper and illegal but the same is nullity in law as having been passed without jurisdiction and authority in law, and on that ground alone the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.;