Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) :- This writ petition has been made by the petitioner company as against the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act and a private respondent. According to the petitioner the private respondent has instituted a case before the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act. The petitioner contested such application taking various pleas before such authority. The petitioner has also raised various serious allegations as against the responded no. 2. During the pendency of such application before the authority, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application to allow it to give evidence on the point inadventently not taken in the original written statement. According to the petition the payment of gratuity is not applicable to the establishment when only six persons have been working in the registered office of the company. According to the petitioner the registered office of the company did not and could not qualify as an "establishment" within the meaning of Section 1(3)(b) of the the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 as amended in 1997. It was further contended that in view of the aforesaid position of law application pending before the Controlling Authority is not tenable in law. According to the petitioner that since the number of employees was less than 10 and remained so till 23rd March, 1998 being the date when the respondent No. 2 resigned from the service and during the period of 12 months prior thereto, the applicability of the act can also not be applicable irrespective of any other grounds. Other points are also taken which are in effect incidental to the main issue as raised before the Authority.
(2.) However, the Authority concerned delivered a judgement and order on 6th May, 2002. Apart from any other point such Authority held that total work power of the factory and the registered office is twenty in number. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 is entitled for gratuity. It is categorically stated by one Sri Dilip Kr. Bose wanted to adduce oral evidence apart from his affidavit in support of the petitioners contentions. However, it is recorded that he stated in favour of the private respondent in getting gratuity for seven years only. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner whereunder a copy of the decision of such Controlling Authority, notice for payment of gratuity etc. are annexed. Upon going through the order and the notice I find that a sum of Rs. 12,932/- was directed to pay to the respondent No. 3 on account of the payment of gratuity together with simple interest rate of 10% per annum within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. The date of the notice is 6th May, 2002 which is also the date of passing the order. This writ petition was filed on 13th January, 2003. Therefore, admittedly the company sleeping over the order of the Authority and also from the date of communication of the notice for a considerable period. Therefore, it can be construed that the petitioner is reluctant about invocation of the Writ Jurisdiction and to get appropriate order.
(3.) However, Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the company mainly contended before this Court, that the Authority under the payment of gratuity passed such order without having any jurisdiction because the registered office of the company cannot be treated as part and parcel of the establishment. For the purpose of establishing his case he has drawn my attention to Section 2(b) of the National Service Act, 1972 to specify the meaning of the word"establishment" It says as follows: (b) "Establishment" means-- (i) Any office, or (ii) Any place where any industry, trade, business or occupation is carried on, and includes any technical institution or training centre.;