( 1 ) THE question involved in the instant writ petition is whether provisions of Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 are applicable to Municipal council, Panna, the petitioner, and the order of Controlling Authority directing Municipal council to pay the gratuity amounting to Rs. 14507. 00 along with interest at the rate of 10% simple interest with effect from September 1, 1996 is proper.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was employed as timekeeper. He was appointed on January 1, 1975 and was removed from the service on august 31,1996. He served for a period of 21 years and 8 months. His last pay was Rs. 1,1437- p. m. Petitioner claimed entitlement for gratuity amounting to Rs. 15,840. 00.

( 3 ) CONTROLLING Authority issued notice to the Municipal Council, Panna. The petitioner herein, in reply contended that respondent no. 2 was appointed as muster roll employee. Initially his services were terminated on March 12, 1985. Thereafter he was employed on temporary basis for 89 days. Since respondent no. 2 completed the age of 65 years, he was removed from the service. Additionally it was contended that since respondent no. 2 was not in regular employment, hence provisions of payment of Gratuity Act are not applicable. The Controlling Authority under Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act of 1972) asstt. Labour Commissioner, Sagar Division, sagar as per order dated July 30, 1998 held that respondent no. 2 served with effect from january 1, 1975 till August 31, 1996. On completion of five years service respondent no. 2 was entitled for payment of gratuity. Respondent no. 2's last wages was found to be rs. 1,143/- per month, and on calculation it was found that gratuity amounting to Rs. 14,507. 00 was payable. Since there was failure to pay the amount within thirty days as per notification of the Government of India, ministry of Labour, dated October 1, 1987, respondent no. 2 was entitled to claim 10% simple interest.

( 4 ) IN the present writ petition only submission raised is that provisions of the Act of 1972 are not applicable to Municipal council. This is a local authority and is not an establishment within the meaning of Section l (3) (a) (b) of the Act of 1972.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the respondent no. 2 refutes the submission and submits that the j provisions of the Act of 1972 are applicable to local authorities. He has placed reliance on a notification dated January 8, 1982 of government of India, Ministry of Labour, which is reproduced hereunder: 'g. S. R. 239. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central Government hereby specifies "local bodies" in which ten or more persons are employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as a class of establishments to which the said Act shall apply with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official gazette. '

( 6 ) FROM a bare reading of the above quoted notification, it is clear that Municipal council is a local body and more than ten persons were in the employment as required under the notification. The petitioner/ municipal Council cannot escape the observance of the provision of the Act of 1972. An "employee" has been defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1972 to mean that 'any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, 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 ). '

( 7 ) THUS, person working on daily wages or monthly wages is not excluded from the purview of the A