The key legal principle established is the interpretation of the definition of 'employee' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the obligation of the employer to determine and pay gratuity within a specified time.

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

These three petitions are directed against different orders dated 8.2.2011 passed by the Controlling Authority (Central) under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’) and confirming appellate order dated 28.2.2012 on similar facts and grounds and therefore, are being decided together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The first writ petition is the leading petition.

Brief relevant facts are that the respondent No. 3 was employed in the petitioner establishment in 1975 and after completion of more than 24 years of service, he retired on 31.3.1999. However, when despite demand the gratuity was not paid, he preferred his claim before the authority appointed by the State Government under the Act. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that since the establishment is spread in more than two States, only the authority appointed by the Central Government would have jurisdiction. Thus, the application was rejected with liberty to approach the competent forum. in pursuance thereof, the private respondent filed his application under the Act claiming gratuity before the respondent No. 1. After exchange of pleadings and evidence, the claim was allowed and the consequential appeal has also been dismissed.

2. It is firstly urged that the private respondent was drawing more than the prescribed salary under the Act, therefore, was not entitled to gratuity under the Act.

The argument is not only naive, but totally misconceived. In reference to the entitlement for gratuity, the term “employee” has been defined in the Act in sub-section (e) of Section 2. Prior to the Amendment in 1994, it was defined as under:

“employees” means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages not exceeding two thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem, or such higher amount as the Central Government may, having regard to the general level of wages, by notification, specify in any establishment, factory, mine, oil-field, 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 and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central-Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.

Explanation-In the case of an employee, who, having been employed for a period of not less than five years on wages not exceeding the amount for the time being specified by or under Clause (a) is employed at any time thereafter on wages exceeding that amount, gratuity in respect of the period during which such employee was employed on wages not exceeding that amount shall be determined on the basis of the wages received by him during that period.

3. This amount originally was Rs.1000 and was increased to Rs.1600 and finally by the amendment of 1984 it was set as Rs.2500. However, it was amended vide Act 34 of 1994 w.e.f. 24.5.1994 and the prescribed limit was removed together with the Explanation and substituted by the following:

“employees” means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, 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, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.

4. Admittedly, the private respondent retired after 1994 and thereafter the application was filed. Therefore, th