S.S.NIJJAR, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India filed by Thapar Polytechnic, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated May 28, 1997 (Annexure P. 3) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order dated April 11, 2000 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act.
(2.) Respondent No. 5-Prem Singh worked as a Peon in the Polytechnic run by the Management for a period of 37 years i.e. from 1957 to March 31, 1995. Upon retirement from service, he was not paid gratuity by the Management. Therefore, he made an application before the Controlling Authority claiming a sum of Rs. 61,384.00. It was pleaded by the Management before the Controlling Authority that the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was available in the Management. Respondent No. 5 had been paid in accordance with this Scheme. It was further pleaded that the institution is a Government aided institution and receives 95% grant-in-aid. The State Government has not sanctioned the payment of gratuity to private institutions like the Management. The proposal sent by the Management is still pending before the Government. It is not disputed that 80 workers were employed in the Management at the relevant time. After considering the entire evidence, the Controlling Authority came to the conclusion that the "administration" has not produced any strong evidence from which it can be decided that the Act is not applicable to the Institution. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Controlling Authority relied on a decision of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1996 (2) SLR 757. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench has held as follows: "The Supreme Court in Sh. Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.K. Rudani AIR 1989 SC 1607 : 1989 (2) SCC 691 : 1989-II-LLJ-324 had earlier dealt with the case and pronounced that under the relationship of master and servant, the management was primarily responsible to pay the salary and other benefits to the employees. The management could not say unless and until the State compensates, it would not make full payment to the staff. The Payment of Gratuity Act makes a provision for the payment of gratuity to the employees and does not conceive of any other authority to be liable or the intervening circumstances disentitling its payment to the employees. As the primary liability to make the payment is of the employer, the petitioners are within their rights to prefer the claim for the payment of the gratuity by their respective employers. The claims of the petitioner regarding payment of gratuity have not been disputed, the respondent employers were under a statutory obligation to make the payment which they have been avoiding on false pretext and technical pleas. After the judgment of this Court in Hindu College Governing's case (supra) delivered on July 30, 1992, no doubt should have been left with the employers regarding their liability to make the payment on account of gratuity. The prayer of the Management for a direction to the State to compensate them for payment of gratuity was rightly negativated by this Court in the said case. All the petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the payment of gratuity after their retirement and in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Rules issued by the Government and the University Calender Rules applicable in the case."
(3.) The Controlling Authority accepted the application filed by the employee-respondent No. 5 and directed the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 59,769.25 to him.;