ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-Central Excise Department, being aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2020 passed in Appeal No.36(133)/2018/B1 by respondent No.3-Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bengaluru.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Ms.G.P.Nagarathnamma was working as a Casual Labourer on temporary basis from 28.09.1992 to till the date of her unfortunate demise on 11.10.2013. It is stated that the deceased Nagarathnamma was not a permanent Group-D employee. Pursuant to the death of deceased Nagarathnamma, respondent Nos.1 and 2, her legal representatives namely, Sri Ramachandra G.P., the brother and Smt.Chandramma T., the mother of the deceased, filed an application before respondent No.4- Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hubli claiming gratuity in respect of the deceased employee Nagarathnamma. The application so filed by the legal representatives i.e. the mother and the brother of the deceased came to be dismissed by the Controlling Authority vide order dated 01.05.2018.

2.1 Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, both respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act and the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central), Bengaluru. Upon consideration of the appeal, the Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal on 06.01.2020 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,19,046/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 11.11.2013 till the actual date of payment.

2.2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, whereby a direction was given to the petitioner to make payment of gratuity amount of Rs.2,19,046/- along with interest @ 10% p.a., has preferred this petition.

3. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel Sri Venkatasathyanarayana on behalf of Sri Madhukar M.Deshpande for petitioner that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore, the same requires to be quashed. It is further contended that the petitioner would not come within the definition of the Act. It is further contended that the Customs and the Central Excise Department does not fall under the term 'establishment', in view of the fact that no trade, business and manufacture are being conducted therein. Therefore, he contends that the Department of Customs and Central Excise would not come within the purview of the Act and so also, the definition of the 'establishment'. This aspect has been totally ignored and not taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order.

3.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Rule 2(b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 defines 'Government servant', which means - 'any person appointed by Government to any civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union and includes a civilian in a Defence Service'. Therefore, a casual labourer is not employed against any sanctioned post and is not paid from the allocations made against the sanctioned strength. Hence, the deceased Nagarathnamma having been employed as a casual labourer does not hold any post which are created, sanctioned or regularised in accordance with any statutory rules for the reason that a casual labourer is purely casual in nature and daily wagers are being engaged on need basis. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is also not applicable to the casual labourer. These aspects have been totally ignored and not appreciated by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order.

3.2 It is further contended by learned counsel that the deceased Nagarathnamma was a casual labourer with temporary status on 23.09.1992 and she remained in the same status as casual la