1. The petitioner is a hospital in whose employment the 1st respondent remained from 3.7.1968 to 31.12.2005. Admittedly the petitioner was superannuated on 31.12.2005 and he was paid gratuity of Rupees Two Lakhs. Alleging that the quantum of gratuity was far lesser than that prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Gratuity Act”), the 1st respondent was before the Controlling Authority, which passed Exhibit P3 order, computing the gratuity payable as per the Gratuity Act at Rs.3,50,000/- and directing payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with 10% interest from 22.03.2006; being the date of filing of the claim.

2. The proceedings thereafter are not very relevant. Suffice it to say that the said order was affirmed, evidenced by Exhibit P8 appellate order. The factum of employment in the hospital is not disputed. The dispute is only with respect to whether the petitioner is an establishment covered under the Gratuity Act.

3. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Gratuity Act makes it applicable to every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relati