The Delhi High Court in a case where grant of gratuity to the employees was challenged and the court thereby observed that, “An employee is an employee, whether on casual, ad-hoc or part time basis” and therefore there cannot be a denial of gratuity on such basis.
The petition was filed in the Delhi High Court by National Bal Bhawan against the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Delhi. In the said order the 7 petitioners has been granted gratuity of worth Rs. 13, 00, 000/- in total along with simple interest @ 10% p.a.
Counsel for National Bal Bhawan, Mr. Rajappa submitted that Bal Bhawan is entirely funded by Ministry of Human Resource and Development and hence, falls under the definition of the state according to article 12 of the Constitution and contended that hence, the respondents hold the post under the central government thereby are excluded from the definition of employees to whom gratuity was awarded. The respective definition provides as follows:
“Sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of Payment of Gratuity the Act, 1972 “2(e) “employee” 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.””
However, the court quoted:
“…More so, when, undisputedly, the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and an autonomous body. Mere funding or assuming, entire funding for running the affairs of such society, cannot change the character or identity of the Society being an independent autonomous body. How come then, rendering of services to such autonomous body by the respondents be construed to be a post under the Central Government, Mr.Rajappa, ld. counsel for the petitioner, is at pains to explain. In plain words, the respondents cannot be said to be holding a post under the Central Government. They are also not shown to be governed by any other Act or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity. In the given factual conspectus, how can the respondents be said to be excluded from the applicability of the Act, 1972 adverting to the definition of ’employee’ as defined in Sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972…”
The respondents were appointed by the National Bal Bhawan in its own rights and there was an employer – employee relationship between the two. Mr. Rajappa failed to present any provision for the part time employees as respondents were allegedly part time employees of National Bal Bhavan.
However, these employees are not entitled for pension as they are not regular employees of central or state government but payment of gratuity cannot be ignored for such employees. The court also observed that denial of gratuity to such employees who has been employees of National Bal Bhavan for decades, “…is to leave them in lurch, when they superannuated. It is a reflection of total insensitivity to their just cause, which, the petitioner has failed to advert to, ignoring the genesis of the beneficial legislation like the Act, 1972.”
The court hence, dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 20,000/- each, i.e Rs. 1,40,000/- to be deposited with The Blind Relief Association.
— Gautam Mishra