JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the order passed by the Educational Tribunal, Punjab dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P-12) whereby, a direction has been given to the petitioner-Institute to pay the leave encashment as well as gratuity and the arrears of salary admissible to the respondent-employee(s).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute argues that firstly the jurisdiction of the Educational Tribunal to pass an order with regard to the Polytechnic College though aided, is to be ascertained as to whether the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees ) Act, 1974 ( in short '1974 Act') will be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case or not.

3. Further argument being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute is that even if, the jurisdiction exists with the Tribunal to pass order in the present case, no direction could have been given to pay the gratuity as the same was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, keeping in view the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in C.R. No.4315-2012, titled as, Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School and another vs. District Judge-cum-Service Tribunal, decided on 20.12.2013.

4. The last argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute to challenge the order of the Educational Tribunal is that even if the petitioner-Institute are to pay the leave encashment and the arrears of salary admissible to the respondent-employee(s), the respondent-employee(s) were working on an aided post for which 95% grant is made by State hence, 95% of the same are liable to be paid by the State Government and not the Institute.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute further submits that there is no rule under which the leave encashment has to be paid to the employees.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee(s) submits that once the respondent-employee(s) were working on aided post and the 95% grant is made by the State and the State Government is giving benefit of leave encashment to its employees and the other aided institutions are also giving the said benefit, the respondent-employee(s) are also entitled for the grant of benefit of leave encashment admissible to them by the petitioner-Institute.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee(s) submits that rather than availing the benefit of leave, the respondent-employee(s) worked for the benefit of the institute and hence, now after the retirement, the benefit of leave encashment cannot be denied to them as the same is admissible qua the other aided institutions where the employees concerned were working on aided post.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no master and servant relationship between the respondent-employee(s) and State and hence, leave encashment can only be claimed from the employer i.e. Management and not from the State and hence, the claim of the petitioner-Institute for reimbursing the amount of leave encashment from the State is liable to be rejected.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute submits that keeping in view the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Jagdish Prasad Saini and others vs. Sate of Rajasthan and others 2022 SCC online SC 1298, the State has been held liable to pay the leave encashment as leave encashment has been treated the part of the salary for the reason that it is benefit which is to be paid for not availing the leave and working for the said period.

10. Last argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute is that as the respondent-employee(s) had already retired much before the date they raised the claim before the Tribunal hence, the belated claim could not have been entertained by the Tribunal under any circumstances and claim should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone thro