The court affirmed the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the petitioners' institution and emphasized the entitlement of the first respondent to receive gratuity despite hyper-technical objections.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is an Educational Society. First respondent was working with it as Professor. He tendered resignation and approached the 2nd respondent for payment of gratuity. By the impugned order at Annexure-B, dated July 31, 2000 the 2nd respondent ordered payment of gratuity to first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeal before the deputy Labour Commissioner. The Deputy labour Commissioner upheld the order at annexure-B and dismissed the appeal by the impugned order at Annexure-C, dated March 3, 2000. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash both the orders.

( 2 ) THE principal contention of the petitioners is that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not applicable to their institution and hence they are not liable to pay the gratuity to first respondent. The contention is wholly untenable in law, in view of the notification at annexure-A, dated April 3, 1997 issued by the central Government. By that notification the central Government specified that the educational institutions in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day preceding 12 months as a class of establishment to which the Act shall apply. Thus, the Act is applicable to the petitioners' institution.

( 3 ) IT is an admitted fact that first respondent worked for more than five years from the year 1981 to 1999 and he is eligible for the monetary benefits provided under the act. The 2nd respondent has rightly determined the same and directed payment along with interest and 3rd respondent was justified in confirming the same. There is no ground for interference in the matter. Writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit.

( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Gangi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that claim was not preferred by the first respondent in the prescribed form within thirty days and hence the claim ought not to have been entertained, is hyper-technical and cannot be accepted. The 3rd respondent considered this aspect and having extracted Rule 7 (5) of the rules which permits entertainment of the applications for payment of gratuity after the expiry of the period specified. The Rule clearly spells out that the claim shall not be invalid merely because the claimant failed to present the application within the specified period.

( 5 ) SO far as the submission that the claim was not made in the prescribed form is concerned, it is to be borne in mind that formats are being prescribed for convenience so that requisite information is furnished. If the claim is not made in the prescribed form, the same will not take away the right of the claimant to prefer the claim on his own application furnishing all the required information in view of the fact that right of payment of gratuity amount under the Act is a benevolent provision and the Act is a social piece of Legislation. The entitlement to the monetary benefit provided under the statute cannot be deprived to a person just because the claim was not made in the prescribed format. Such hyper-technical objections are wholly unwarranted and deserve rejection. Petitioners cannot escape payment of statutory amount to the first respondent on such flimsy grounds. Hence, the submission is rejected.

( 6 ) THE writ petition is dismissed.

--- *** ---

.