Applicability of the Act.

Mohan, J.

1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case, is whether a firm of Architects would be governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Under Section 1(3)(b) of the said Act, it is stated as follows-

It shall apply to-(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 preceeding twelve months.

2. In this State it is the Tamil Nadu Shops and establishments Act that is in force in relation to the shops and establishments. There is a direct ruling of Srinivasan, J., in M/s. L.M. Chitale and Son by sole surviving partner S. L Chitale v. The Commissioner of Labour, Chepauk, Madras and Ors., I.L.R. holding that the Shops and Establishments Act will not apply to the firm of Architects. That decision has been relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions for certiorari, while the learned Counsel for the respondents would say that it cannot be contended that the ruling can any longer be held to be good law in view of the later rulings of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa and Ors. (S.N.) and the ruling of the Delhi High Court in Messrs. C.C. Sharma and Sons. v. Sri R.K. Bawaja Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and Ors. (1972)2 L.L.J. 475. This is an important point which requires to be decided by a Bench because I have my own doubt whether the ruling of Srinivasan, J., cited above could still be held to be good law in view of the later rulings of the Supreme Court. In this view, I direct that the papers may be placed before my Lord, the Chief Justice, for suitable orders as to the posting before a Bench.

(Pursuant to the above order of reference these cases coming on for hearing before the Division Bench, the Court delivered the following judgment):

The Chief Justice.

3. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the Management of Pithavadian and Partners, Architects and Planners, and has prayed for quashing the order of the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directing the petitioner to pay gratuity to its erstwhile employees, under the said Act.

4. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions lie in a narrow compass. One C. Ramamurthi was employed in the petitioner-firm as a draughtsman and "served under the petitioner from 13th August, 1959 to 8th October, 1974. His wife and legal heir filed a claim application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for payment of gratuity, and the Controlling Authority after notice to the petitioner, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,750. Another worker, G.M. Joseph claimed a sum of Rs. 4,675 as gratuity, for having served the petitioner-firm as a draughtsman for seventeen years and three months and the Controlling Authority after notice to the parties and after hearing them, allowed the said claim.

5. The Management filed an appeal against both the orders before the Appellate Authority under the Act and the Appellate Authority by a common order, upheld the order of the original authority, allowing the claim for gratuity. It is against both these orders that the management has filed the present writ petitions. Pending disposal of the writ petitions, G.M. Joseph died and his legal representatives have been brought on record by an order, dated 4th March, 1982 in W.M.P. No. 2469 of 1982.

6. The main contention raised in these writ petitions is that the petitioner firm, which is a firm of architects, will not come under the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, as it is not an establishment within the meaning of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, as held by this Court in M/s. L.M. Chitale and Son v. Commissioner of Labour. The claimants-respondents contested this position before the learned single Judge and contended that the said decision is no