JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---These 7 writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order, as they raise the same question of law and the facts are also similar, if not identical.

2. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is a Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924. The First respondent is the Appellate Authority set up by the Central Government to hear appeals under section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter, for short, called "the Act") , who has passed the impugned order. The other respondents are the workmen of the petitioners, who are hereinafter referred to as "the workmen".

3. The workmen filed applications under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming different amounts of gratuity due to them under the provisions of the Act. These applications came to be allowed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner Board appealed against the said orders of the Controlling Authority to the Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeals. The petitioners are in this Court to impugn the orders of the Appellate Authority.

4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the facts alleged in each of the applications are not disputed by the petitioner/Board. The petitioners opposed the applications only on the ground of non-applicability of the Act, which is the legal objection canvassed throughout. Mr. Presswala, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Board, fairly conceded that, if the Board's legal objection is not upheld, then, the workmen would be entitled to the amounts of Gratuity claimed by them in their respective applications as awarded by the Controlling Authority.

5. This takes us to the legal objection that has been raised by the petitioner-Board as to the tenability of the applications under the provisions of the Act. The contention, shortly put, is that the Act does not apply to the petitioner-Board, as the offices/establishments where the concerned workmen were employed do not fall within the ambit of section 1(3)(b) so as to make the Act applicable. It is common ground that, at the relevant time, no notification within the contemplation of section 1(3)(c) has been issued and that such a notification came to be issued only in January, 1982. It is also common ground that the petitioner's offices/establishments would not fall within Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act. The Appellate Authority has negatived the contention by taking the view that the offices/establishments of the petitioner-Board were covered under the provisions of section 1(3)(b) of the Act, as they satisfy the definition of the term "establishment" both under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Bombay Shops Establishments Act, 1948.

6. The applicability of the Act is determined by section 1 of the said Act. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 1, which is the only relevant provision which needs to be considered, reads as under :

"1. Short title, extent, application and commencement---

(3) It shall apply to--

(a) ......

(b) 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 twelve months;

(c) ....."

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the offices/establishments where the concerned workmen were employed are not covered by the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the provisions of the Bombay Shops Establishments Act, 1948. Consequently, those establishments would not amount to "establishments" within the meaning of the said laws, as contemplated by Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 1. Hence, the petitioner contends that the Payment of Gratuity Act would not apply.

8. It is difficult to accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document