- (1.) Sabhajeet Yadav
(2.) HEARD Sri K.P. Chaudhary, learned standing counsel for the petitioner and Sri Samir Sharma Advocate for the respondent No. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by respondent No. 2/Controlling Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Gorakhpur in Case No. GR.P.G02/2004, Smt. Anwari Begam Widow of Late Shahid Ali v. M/s Executive Engineer, Electrical and Mechanical Division, Public Works Department Gorakhpur, whereby a direction has been given for payment of an amount of Rs.16182/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum w.e.f. 18.11.1997, as gratuity payable to the deceased Shahid Ali, to the respondent No. 1. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed on 14.1.2004 under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before Controlling Authority under the said Act i.e. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, with the assertion that the husband of respondent No. 1 namely Shahid Ali was employed as electrician in work-charged establishment of Electrical and Mechanical Division, Public Works Department, Gorakhpur since April, 1986 and died on 18.10.1997 while in service/employment of the petitioner. At the time of his death he was drawing an emolument of Rs.5000/- per month. It was stated that an amount of Rs.31,730/-was payable as gratuity to him from the petitioner. The claim of respondent No. 1 was contested by the petitioner before the Controlling Authority. The stand taken against the claim of respondent No. 1 by the petitioner was that Late Shahid Ali was neither employee of an 'industry' nor of 'factory' nor he was covered under the provisions of the Act. The employees of the petitioner were treated as Government servants and were entitled to payment of emoluments as per Financial Rules applicable and provisions of the Act were not applicable to them. It was further stated that the salary of Late Shahid Ali as last drwan was Rs.2775/- per month. Therefore, at any rate the alleged claim of respondent No. 1 is not admissible at all.
(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through record the Controlling Authority-respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order dated 31.8.2005, holding that late Shahid Ali was entitled for payment of gratuity under the Act, accordingly he gave a direction for payment of gratuity to the respondent No. 1 in the tune of Rs.16,182/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum w.e.f. 18.11.1997. A certified copy of the impugned order is on record as Annexure-1 of the writ petition. It is contended by learned standing counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the case the respondent No. 2 did not decide the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of the case in question and urged that the Controlling Authority did not address himself to the provisions contained in Financial Hand Book Volume-VI Paras 668 and 669 which clearly laid down that the work- charged employee is not entitled to any pension/leave salary/allowances. Admittedly Late Shahid Ali was work charged employee in the establishment of the petitioner and had not become regular employee before his death. Therefore, he was not entitled to any pension or gratuity under the provisions of the Act, thus, no claim under the provisions of the Act could be entertained by the respondent No. 2.;