S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE sole question that arises for consideration in the writ appeal and the batch of writ petitions is as to whether the respondent-University is an "establishment" within the meaning of the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

( 2 ) THE Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act"), was enacted to provide for a scheme for payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oil-fields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act applies to the whole of India. In terms of Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, the Act is made applicable to every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding 12 months.

( 3 ) THE fact that the respondent-University carried on an organised and systematic activity by employing ten or more persons on any day of the preceding 12 months is not in dispute. The respondent-University, in the writ petition, inter alia, contended that since it is an educational institution, the provisions of the act are not applicable. It further contended that since the concerned workmen were daily rated workers, they did not satisfy even the prerequisites of an employee.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. While doing so, he upheld the first contention raised by the respondent-University that it being an educational institution, is not covered by the provisions contained in Section l (3) (b) of the act, and, in view of the above, he declined to go into the second contention.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge, while answering the first question, relied upon the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Chairman, Governing Body, S. M. V. M. Polytechnic, Tanuku v. Government of A. P. , 1989-II-LLJ-95. It now appears that the subject-matter, as raised before us, earlier came up for consideration before a Division bench of this Court in V. Venkateswara Rao v. S. M. V. M, Polytechnic, 1998-I-LU-181 (APDB) wherein the Division Bench, following the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court,air 1979 SC 1981 : 1980 (1) scc 4 : 1981-I-LLJ-354, reversed the view that the university is not an educational institution. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court (supra) while rejecting the contention that Section l (3) (b) must be a law, which relates to both shops and establishments stated at p. 355 of LLJ:". . . . . . . Section l (3) (b) speaks of "any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State". . . . . . It is difficult to accept that contention because there is no warrant for so limiting the meaning of the expression "law" in Section l (3) (b ). The expression is comprehensive in its scope, and can mean a law in relation to shops, as well as, separately, a law in relation to establishments, or a law in relation to shops and commercial establishments and a law in relation to shops, non-commercial establishments. Had Section l (3) (b) intended to refer to a single enactment, surely the appellant would have been able to point to such a statute, that is to say, a statute relating to shops and establishments both commercial and non-commercial. . . . . . . Had the intention of Parliament been, when enacting Section 1 (3) (b), to refer to a law relating to commercial establishments, it would not have left the expression "establishments" unqualified. We have carefully examined the various provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and we are unable to discern any reason for giving the limited meaning to Section 1 (3) (b) urged before us on behalf of the appellant. Section 1 (3) (b) applies to every establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to establishments in a State. . . .

Click Here to Read the rest of this document