JUDGMENT - VYAS N.D., J.:---By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that she is entitled to get gratuity from the 1st Respondent School under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Gratuity Act for short) and prays for certiorari for quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 11th September, 1987 passed by the Controlling Authority under the said Act and the Judgment and Order dated 23rd November, 1987 passed by the Appellate Authority under the said Act. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate order directing the 5th Respondent to issue necessary Notification as per the provisions of section 1(3)(c) and 1(4) of the Gratuity Act covering Private Schools under the provisions of the said Act. However, at the time of arguments, this last prayer mentioned hereinabove was not pressed.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

The petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent-Primary School, an unaided school. The 1st Respondent-School is a registered Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner was initially employed as a temporary teacher from 13th June, 1967 and was later confirmed in the said post. She retired on superannuation on 29th November, 1985, thus completing more than 17 years. After her retirement, the petitioner made an application to the 1st Respondent demanding gratuity. Having failed in the attempt, she filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the said Act. The claim of the petitioner was for Rs. 13,084.20. The Controlling Authority dismissed the said application by its Judgment and Order dated 11th September, 1987. An appeal therefrom preferred by the petitioner to the appellate authority under the said Act, was also dismissed. Hence the present petition.

3. Mr. Apte, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Gratuity Act were applicable in the case of the petitioner inasmuch as that the 1st Respondent-School is an 'establishment' to which the said Act is applicable and the petitioner being an 'employee' was entitled to the benefits of gratuity as provided by the said Act. It was thus his submission that in the instant case, the required twin tests viz., the 1st Respondent-School being an 'establishment' and petitioner being an 'employee' were satisfied. On the other hand Mr. Bukhari. The learned Advocate appearing for the 1st Respondent-School joined issues with Mr. Apte and submitted that the 1st Respondent-School was neither an 'establishment' to which the Act was applicable nor was the petitioner an 'employee' to whom benefits of gratuity under the Gratuity Act were available. It was further submitted by Mr. Bukhari that the service conditions of Private School are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 which is a complete Code in itself. Therefore, the petitioner in any view of the matter was not entitled to claim benefit under the said Act.

4. Thus an important question of law is required to be determined viz., whether a teacher of a private school is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

5. Before we deal with the rival contentions of the parties, at the outset we wish to make it clear that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a piece of social welfare legislation. It is intended to give benefit to employees working in establishments. Thus the provisions of the Act are required to be construed liberally. They should be so construed that the beneficial intention of the legislature is not frustrated by a strict or narrow interpretation and the benefit of the Act reaches the maximum possible persons. This is settled position in law. It is not necessary to refer to the entire gamut of authorities cited in this behalf. Suffice to say that Mr. Apte was justified in relying

Click Here to Read the rest of this document