A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The Postal Department, questioning the orders passed under the Payment of Gratuity 'Act, 1972 filed these batch of Writ Petitions. Since the common issue relating to the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the Postal Department is a common question, all these Writ Petitions are considered together for disposal. The short issue is whether under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would apply to the Postal Department or not. The Postal Department urges two contentions before this court. One is based on the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The other contention is based on Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011. I shall deal these contentions separately.

2. In all these cases, Gratuity Controller and Appellate Authority found that Postal Department, in so far as their engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks are concerned is an establishment covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. Insofar as the first question, the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the learned counsel for the Postal Department rely upon Section 1(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act, which reads as follows:

"(3). It shall apply to-

(a) Every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company.

(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) Such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf."

4. Admittedly. Section 1(3)(c) does not apply as there is no notification issued by the Central Government. Therefore, the only provision that could be considered for application is Section 1(3)(b). According to the petitioners, service of the Postal Department cannot be considered as a service rendered by a shop or any other establishment within the meaning of State Law. It is contended that the shop and establishment as referred in Section 1 (3)(b) has to be understood as a commercial establishment and not one like service, being rendered by the Postal Department.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant before the Gratuity Controller would submit that the establishment referred under Section 1(3)(b) would apply to the Postal Department as well and the meaning of the establishment has to be given based on the law applicable in the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to the meaning of establishment under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 to substantiate his contention. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao & Ors., ((1997) 8 SCC 767). to substantiate that the argument that the Postal Department is also an industry engaged in commercial activities.

6. The establishment in fact has not been defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act. As seen from Section 1(3)(b) establishment has to be understood within the meaning of State law applicable. In the State of Kerala, the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 would apply in relation to service and conditions of the employees in shops and commercial establishments in the State. Section 2(4) defines commercial establishment. This definition would also mean an establishment wherein persons are engaged mainly for office work. Section 2(4) defines the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 as follows:

"(4) 'Commercial establishment' means a commercial or industrial or trading or banking or insurance establishment, an establishment or administrative service In which the persons employed are mainly engaged in office work, hotel, restaurant, boarding or eating house, cafe or any other refreshment house, a theatre or any other place of public amusement or en