JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) The Court : The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated February 4, 2004 holding that since provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were applicable to the two units of the firm taken together, it was under the statutory obligation to pay gratuity to the third respondent (Smt. Gita Mondal) in terms of provisions of that Act.
(2.) After working in the Behala Printing Unit of the firm for long twenty-two years the third respondent resigned from service in May, 2002. In terms of an arrangement between the firm and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Corporation paid her, through the firm, Rs. 8,421/- on account of gratuity. Gratuity was not paid to her in terms of provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the ground that provisions of the Act were not applicable.
(3.) The third respondent submitted an application to the controlling authority alleging that the firm had not paid her gratuity in terms of provisions of the Act, though she was entitled to that. Upon receipt of notice issued by the controlling authority the firm entered appearance and submitted its written objection contending that in view of provisions in Section 1(3)(b), it having never engaged ten or more persons in its Behala Printing Unit, provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were not applicable to it. With its objection the firm submitted certain documents in support of its case that the Act did not apply to the Unit.;