The Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to every employee who has worked continuously for five years, notwithstanding whether, he is a permanent employee or not.

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar has preferred one group of Writ Petitions and the identically placed Respondents/Daily Wage Employees in the said petitions have also filed the second group of Writ Petitions wherein the Agriculture University is the Respondent. For the sake of brevity, the Agriculture University in these matters shall be referred to as “the University” and the Daily Wage Employees, who are Respondents in the petitions filed by the University and are Petitioners in their own group of petitions, shall be referred to as "the Workers”.

3. While issuing notice, this Court by it’s order dated 22.04.2016 had directed that the amount deposited by the Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri with the Appellate Authority (PGA) shall not be disbursed until further orders.

4. The University is aggrieved by the common Judgment dated 20.10.2011 delivered by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The University is also aggrieved by the common Judgment dated 11.06.2015 delivered by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority, while granting the amount of gratuity, had directed the payment of interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date it became due and payable. The Appellate Authority, which is the Industrial Court, sustained the directions of the Controlling Authority to the extent of the amounts of gratuity to be paid. However, interest granted by the Controlling Authority was not sustained and as such, the Appeals filed by the University were partly allowed. The Workers are also aggrieved by the same common Judgment to the extent of the refusal of interest on the gratuity amount.

5. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri Shelke and Shri Navandar, learned Advocates appearing for the University and Shri Barde, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of all the Workers. With their assistance, I have gone through the record available.

6. The thrust of the submissions of the learned Advocates on behalf of the University can be summarised as under :

(a) All the Workers at issue are daily wage workers.

(b) All of them have been retrenched by order dated 15.03.2001 and the law of retrenchment has been complied with.

(c) Pursuant to an earlier Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Special Appeal Nos. 8640 to 8659 of 1997 dated 24.07.2001 in between the same parties, legal dues payable to the Workers were recalculated and further dues were paid.

(d) The tenure of employment of the Workers upto their retrenchment on 15.03.2001 is not disputed.

(e) All the Workers preferred their applications under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the Controlling Authority on 05.12.2005.

(f) The Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable to the daily wage workers.

(g) The University has made the Payment of Gratuity Act applicable to all Class-IV workers and above, while not making it applicable to daily wagers.

(h) The applications for gratuity filed by the Workers were delayed by about three and half years.

(i) No application for condonation of delay was filed.

(j) There is no decision by the Controlling Authority on the issue of delay.

(k) There is also no decision of the Controlling Authority on the issue of whether, the Payment of Gratuity Act would be applicable to the Workers at issue.

(l) Since the Workers have not put forth their demands earlier and since the University was under a bona fide belief that the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable to the daily wager workers, no interest needs to be imposed.

(m) The University is not a profit making body or authority and has to survive on the funds generated through the fees of the students.

(n) The University has to generate it’s own funds for sustaining several expenses and considering this position, interest ought not to be imposed on the am