A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 29th Sept. , 1984 (Fx. 5) of the labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority U/s 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). One Poonam Chard was appointed as Octroi Guard in the office of the petitioner. He was promoted to the post of Sub Nakedar. In the year, 1974, he was further promoted to the post of Nakedar. Poonam Chand retired on 1st December, 1977. After retirement he v. as also paid the amount of Provident Fund as provided under the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities (Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1969 ). Thereafter Poonam Chand died in the year, 1980. Poonam Chand left behind his wife Smt. Sarju Devi and three sons viz. Jagdish Chandra, Babu Lal and Roshan Lal. After death of Poonam Chand, an application under Sec. 10 of the Act, 1972 was filed by the respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 1 on the ground that Poonam Chard was entitled for payment of gratuity as per the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act, 1972. PETITIONER submitted reply to the aforesaid application and submitted that the claim of respondent, Sarju Devi is not tenable as the amount of gratuity has been paid to deceased Poonam Chand in terms of Rules, 1969. Respondent No. 1, however, held that the respondent is entitled to benefit of the Gratuity Act,1972 and she is entitled for the payment of gratuity under this Act and quantified the amount of Rs. 3c07/-and the cost of Rs. 25/ -. Aggrieved against this order, Municipal Council filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority by its order dated 30th May, 1981 (Ex. 3) affirmed the order of the Controlling Authority and held that deceased Poonam Chand was entitled to the payment of gratuity in accordance with the Act of 1972. Aggrieved against this, petitioner Municipal Board has filed present writ petition and challenged the order of the Appellate Authority as well as Controlling Authority by this writ petition.
(2.) MR. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner has been paid the gratuity amount in terms of Rules, 1969, therefore the application moved by the respondent Sarju Devi, wife of deceased Poonam Chand was totally mis-conceived. The learned counsel further submits that the Gratuity Act is not applicable in case of municipal employees. He further submits that now this Act has been made applicable to the local bodies w. e. f. 31st Jan. ,1982 by the notification issued u/s 38 of Section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act ,1972. Thus, the case of the petitioner is not governed by this Act and both the authorities below committed grave illegality. As against this, MR. Govind Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Act is applicable as definition given in Sub-section 36 of Section 1 of the Act, Municipal Board is an establishment and it is covered by the Act. He, further submits that subsequent notification of the Government of India still makes it clear. In this connection, he has invited my attention to State of Punjab Vs. The Labour Court Jullundhur (1) and the Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway. Quilon V/s. M. P. Sankara Pillan (2) and Chimanlal V/s. Municipal Committee, Panipatt (3 ). I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. The definition under sub-section 3 (b) of Section 1 reads as under:- "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, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. : The establishment has not been defined in this Act. But the establishment has been defined in Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1936 ). Sub-section 2-G of Section 2 of the Act, 1936 reads as under: "establishment in which any work relating to the construction development of maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals or relating to operations connected with navigation, irrigation or the supply of water or relating to the generation transmission and distribution of the electricity or any other form of power is being carried on. " The definition of establishment defined under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is too wide and it includes that any authority who is involved in construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canal etc. then such authority shall be establishment. Municipalities are responsible for maintenance of buildings as well as roads and bridges within municipal limits. Thus the definition of establishment includes municipalities. In State of Punjab V/s. The Labour Court, Jullundhur (supra) considered the definition of the establishment and it has been held that Section l (3) (b) applies to every establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to establishment in a State. It was observed that we have carefully examined the various provisions of payment of gratuity Act and we are unable to discern any reason for giving the meaning to section l (3) (b) urged before us on behalf of the appellant. Section 1 (3) (b) applies to every establishment in as state. Such an establishment would include an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 2 (ii) (g) of the Payment of Wages Act. Accordingly; we are of the opinion that the Payment of Gratuity Act applies to an establishments in which any work relating to the construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals or relating to operations connected with navigation, irrigation or the supply of water or relating to the generation, transmission of distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried on. The Hydel Upper Bari Doab Construction Project is such an establishment and the Payment of Gratuity Act applies to it. " Thus, in view of the wide definition of establishment it is clear that the Municipal Board, Gangapur falls in this definition of establishment and is covered u/s 3 (b) of Section 1 of the Act. Similarly in some what identical circumstances Kerala and Punjab High Courts (supra) made Gratuity Act applicable to local bodies also.
(3.) NEXT question that arises is that when rules have been framed for payment of gratuity to Municipal employees then how the Gratuity Act will be applicable. Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the specific rules for payment of gratuity, these Rules of 1969 as referred to above shall cover the case of petitioner and not Gratuity Act. This can be answered by referring to Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act very clearly lays down that this Act will have override effect on all other laws. Section 14 reads as under:- "14. Act to override other enactments etc.- The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwith standing anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument of contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. " Section 14 overrides the other rules or Act made on the subject by virtue by these provision. Rules of 1969 will have no role to play, so far as they are inconsistent with the Act. Thus the Payment of Gratuity Act will cover the municipalities for the payment of gratuity and not the rules of 1969, Moreover, this is social legislation and it should be given more extensive application. Thus, this submission of Mr. Lodha has no force and rejected. I hold that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to the Municipalities and in this view of matter, the appellate authorities have rightly upheld the order of the controlling authority of granting a sum of Rs. 3007/- to the respondent as an arrear of the gratuity under this Act. In the result, I don't find any merit in the writ petition and it is hereby dismissed without order as to costs. . ;