MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. V T NARESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Municipal Corporation of Delhi has impugned the order of the Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which transpires to be an order dated 22nd December, 1980 as stated in the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority appointed under the aforesaid Act and the order dated 26th July 1982 passed by the Appellate Authority appointed under the aforesaid Act.

(2.) Smt. V.T. Naresh, respondent No. I had filed an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act' for payment of gratuity on her retirement from service on 6th February, 1976. Her case was that she had been employed on 1st August, 1963 and she is entitled to gratuity as she has served the Corporation for 22 years 9 months and 6 days. The petitioner-corporation pleaded that the Act is not applicable to the employees of the Petitioner-Corporation and that the Corporation has its own gratuity Regulations/pensions Rules to allow gratuity to retiring employees and, therefore, the application before the Controlling Authority was not maintainable. The Controlling Authority negatived both the submissions. The said submissions were also repeated before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also negatived both the submissions. Before me Mr. J.K. Mehra, learned counsel urged the same points again. Before noticing the submissions made before me, certain relevant provisions of the Act may be seen. Section I of the Act provides for applicability of the Act. Relevant part of Sub-section (3) of Section I of the Act is as under :

(3.) The argument of Mr. J.K. Mehra, learned counsel is that the petitioner-corporation is a local authority created under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and is not an establishment within the meaning of Sub-clause (b) Sub-section 3 of Section I of the Act reproduced earlier. For appreciating the submission, after leaving the unnecessary words of Subclause (b), it would read,