- (1.) Petitioner herein is a deemed University notified under Section 3 of the University Grants. It is aggrieved of an order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Labour Training & Employment Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand as Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in P.G. Appeal No. 02/22 affirming the order dated 7.9.2002 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Controlling Authority in P.G Case No. 2/02.
(2.) Factual background' leading to the present writ application is noticed hereunder. Respondent No. 4 joined the petitioner-Institution as Assistant Professor on 16.9.1971 and superannuated in the name capacity on 30.11.2001. After retirement respondent No. 4 made an application before the petitioner-employer claiming gratuity. This application came to be rejected en 24.12.2001. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 made an application before respondent No. 3 Controlling Authority notified under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972. Respondent No. 3 after seeking response of the petitioner and holding an inquiry, passed order dated 7.9.2002 directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 3,38,796/- as gratuity along with 10% simple interest till the payment to respondent No. 4. Petitioner herein refereed an appeal being P.G. Appeal No. 02/02 before respondent No. 2. Appellate Authority notified under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 challenging the order of respondent No. 2. Appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 15.4.2005. Common grounds for challenge before the Appellate Authority as also before this Court are (1) Respondent No. 4 is not an employee within the meaning of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (2) Respondent No. 4 is not covered under the notification dated 3.4.1997 issued by the Central Government and thus is not entitled to gratuity and (3) Respondent No. 4 having not completed five years of continuous service after the notification dated 3.4.1997 is not eligible to earn gratuity. Controlling Authority at well the Appellate Authority rejected all the contentions of the petitioner, inter alia, held that (1) Respondent No. 4 is an employee within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (2) Notification fully covers the case of the respondent No. 4 having made the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applicable to the Educational Institutions and (3) five years continuous service is to be reckoned from the date of joining of service and not from the date of issuance of notification applying the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the institution in question.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.;