SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(P&H) 251

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.P.Sethi and R.L.Anand JJ.
Ajmer Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 3464 of 1995,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 7, 1996

The liability to pay gratuity and leave encashment to employees of private educational institutions lies with the employer, not the State Government.

Headnote:

PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - SECTION 4 - GRATUITY - ENTITLEMENT - EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - LIABILITY TO PAY GRATUITY - EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY - STATE GOVERNMENT NOT LIABLE.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, retired employees of private educational institutions, sought release of gratuity, leave encashment, and house rent allowance. The institutions claimed the State Government was liable to pay the terminal benefits, while the State contended the liability was on the employers.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the liability to pay gratuity and leave encashment was primarily that of the employer, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Punjab University Calendar Rules. The State Government was not liable to contribute to these payments.

Issues: 1. Whether the employer or the State Government was liable to pay gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioners. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to interest on the gratuity and leave encashment.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, casts a duty on the employer to pay gratuity to employees who have rendered continuous service for not less than five years. 2. The Punjab University Calendar Rules provide for gratuity to teachers at the time of retirement, to be paid by the Government Body. 3. The Supreme Court has held that the management of a privately managed government aided college is primarily responsible for paying salary and other benefits to its employees, including gratuity.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondent-employers to pay the petitioners the gratuity and leave encashment, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of retirement/resignation/death or from 30.7.1992 (the date of a relevant judgment), whichever was later.

Judgment

R.P.Sethi, J.

1. Release of gratuity in favour of the petitioners who are admitted to have been retired from the service of the private respondents, is the main prayer in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3464, 3465, 10677, 12681 to 12684, 15121, 16055 and 17725 to 17726 of 1995. Some of the petitioners have also prayed for the release of leave encashment and house rent allowance as well. A prayer has also been made for the payment of the amount rent allowance alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum. As identical question of law on admitted facts are involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners were the employees of the private educational institutions and as they were not granted the terminal benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and house rent allowance have preferred writ petitions for the grant of appropriate relief. It is submitted that the respondent-employers were liable to pay the amount of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Rules of the Punjab Government and of the Punjab University. The petitioners have further submitted that they have been regularly contributing towards the provident fund and that the respondents were not justified in refusing to grant the relief as prayed for in these writ petitions. It is further contended that despite the law being very specific and requests made from time to time the respondents have illegally withheld the payment of the aforesaid amount which left the petitioners with no option but to approach this Court for the grant of appropriate relief.

3. In the reply filed on behalf of the official respondents, it is submitted that the liability to pay the terminal benefits is upon the employer and the Government was not liable to contribute for the same. The respondent - employer have submitted that the liability to pay for the claims of the petitioners was that of the State of Punjab as their institutions were getting 95 percent of the grant-in-aid towards the salaries of the sanctioned strength of the College. It is contended that as the State Government has not provided grant-in-aid for payment of gratuity for pension, the respondent-employers could not be burdened with the obligation of making payment to the petitioners. It is, however, conceded that the petitioners which was being run by the Trust registered under the Indian Trust Act. It is also conceded that the Colleges in which the petitioners were employed were affiliated with the Punjab University. Regarding the payment of house rent allowance, it is submitted that there was a dispute regarding the municipal limits of Ludhiana town which was finally settled by the Court after the resignation of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 3464 of 1995. In that case, the petitioner is stated to have been paid rural area allowance. It is submitted that the College used to get arrears from the Government which were stopped w.e.f. 1.9.1988.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant provisions of law.

5. As the claim of gratuity in all the cases is common, we propose to deal with the said claim in the first instance. Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, a duty is cast upon the employer to pay to its employees gratuity on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service of not less than five years. Employee within the meaning of the aforesaid Act means any person employed on wages in any establishment, factory, mine, oil filed plantation, port, railway company or shop to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual supervisory, technical or Clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied. The entitlement of the petitioners to the payment of gratuity has not been disputed before us. Regulation 13.1 of the Punjab University Callendar Volume I, Chapter VIII B dealing with the affiliated Colleges specifically provides :-

"13.1(i) In addition to th








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top