B. L. Yada]v, J. - (1.) -Whether an employee of the U. P. Co-operative Union (for short the Union) (an apex Co-operative Society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965), is entitled to benefits of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (for short the Act), is the point for our consideration in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE facts are admitted. Opposite patty no. 1 Sri Prabhu Dayal Srivastava was an employee of the Union and he retired on 30-11-1976 as Supervisor after completing the age of superannuation. He filed an application dated 28-9-1977 (vide Annexure A-II) before the Controlling Authority under the Act claiming that he was entitled to gratuity payable under the Act, but the same was not being paid to him by the petitioners. When notices were served on petitioners a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of them that sections 1 (3) (b) (c) of the Act are not applicable to the employess of U. P. Co-operative Union or the Federal Authority as the petitioners were not 'establishment' within the meaning of section 1 (3) (b) (c) ot the Act. THE preliminary objection was rejected by the impugned order dated 22-5-1979 (Annexure A-III). Against that order the present petition has been filed. Sri Triloki Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Co-operative Union or the Federal Authority, petitioner no. 1 was not "an establishment" within the meaning of section 1 (3) (b) or (c) of the Act, hence the Act would not apply. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand urged that even though the 'establishment' was not a defined term, but nevertheless it has got such a comprehensive connotation that the employees of petitioner no. 1 coupled with the legal duties they perform, is certainly an organized body of men maintained for that purpose and certainly it is covered by the expression 'establishment' used under section 1 (3) (b) or (c) of the Act. Hence the benefit of gratuity is certainly available to the employees of petitioner no. 1. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it is better to set out relevant statutory provision of the Act as under :- "1. Short Title, extent, application and commencement : This Act may be called Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. (3) It shall apply to- (a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company. (b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months; (c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.
(3.) WE are conscious that the Act is a progressive, social and beneficial legislation and it has to be interpreted as to promote the purpose or object of the Act. In such matters the construction that promotes the purpose of legislation should be preferred rather than just a literal construction. Under section 1 (3) (c) the relevant clause is "such other establishment" in a State in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. The preceding clause 1 (3) (b) was every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishment in a State. The word 'and' even though appears to be conjunction, but keeping in view the legislative intent and applying elementary principles of textual and contextual interpretation it appears to have the meaning of 'or' and has been accordingly, used in a disjunctive sense. This preceding clause under section 1 (3) (b) to the effect 'every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops' has got a complete meaning with the establishment pertaining to shops. There was no sense in using the word 'and', a conjunction, and to add subsequent clause 'establishment in a State' in which ten or more persons are employed. This obviously indicates that subsequent expression 'establishment in a State' has been used in an independent and different sense than the preceding clause and has nothing to do with the establishment in relation to shops. In our opinion the word 'and' has been used disjuntively to mean 'or'. WE are conscious that the word 'or' is antithesis of word 'and' and the meaning of word 'and' has to be sparingly interpreted as 'or'. The context of expression has been used under sub-clause (b) or sub clause (c) of section 1 (3) of the Act. Keeping in view of the intention and purpose of legislation to provide gratuity to employees drawing wages upto Rs. 270/- per month or otherwise. The object of Act can also be in brief looked into, which is to the following effect : "The Bill provides for payment of gratuity to employees drawing wages upto Rs. 750/- per month in factories, plantations, shops, estsblishments and mines, in the event of superannuation, retirement, resignation and death or total disablement due to accident or disease. The quantum of gratuity payable will be 15 days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employees concerned for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum of 15 months' wages. The term wages means basic wages plus dearness allowance." In the aforesaid object of the Act it has been clearly specified that the employees of factories, plantations, shops, establishments and mines have been separately provided. It means that the object of legislation was to provide benefit of gratuity to establishments independently of shops.;