IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13055 of 2000 Date of decision:08.10.2009 Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board ...Petitioner Versus The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others. ...Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.13056 of 2000 Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board ...Petitioner Versus The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others. ...Respondents Present: Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3 ---- III. Civil Writ Petition No.2946 of 2001 Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board ...Petitioner Versus The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and others. ...Respondents Present: Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent No.3 ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Civil Writ Petition No.13055 of 2000 - 2 - 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) C.M. No.10494 of 2001 The application to restore the writ petition, which had been dismissed in default on 19.04.2001, for the reasons stated in the application, is ordered to be restored. Civil Writ Petition Nos.13055-13056 of 2000 1. Both the writ petitions challenge the respective orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in response to the claim of two different employees under the petitioner. The workman, whose claim is a subject of writ petition in Civil Writ Petition No.13055 of 2000, was admittedly retired on 31.07.1991. The claimant, who is the respondent in writ petition i.e. Civil Writ Petition No.13056 of 2000, retired on 03.12.1992. By the impugned orders of the respective authorities, the workmen’s claims to gratuity were admitted and orders were passed. 2. Among other contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board, the principal contention was that both the employees had been drawing salaries more than Rs.2,500/-at the relevant time and even the calculations of gratuity show that the employee in Civil Writ Petition No.13055 of 2000 was drawing Rs.4148/- per month and the employee in Civil Writ Petition No.13056 of 2000 was drawing Rs.2,640/- per month. The ultimate Civil Writ Petition No.13055 of 2000 - 3 - determination of gratuity payable to the workman had been made on the basis of the last wage drawn mentioned above. The contention of the learned counsel was that before the amendment to the definition of ‘employee’ brought through Act 34 of 1994 w.e.f. 24.05.1994 only employees whose employment was on wages not exceeding Rs.2,500/- were entitled to gratuity. I have shown that each one of the employee had been drawing more than Rs.2,500/- at the relevant time and their cases were bound to be considered only with reference to the definition as it was in the unamended provision of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Although the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also argued on the mistake of calculations, I do not propose to examine for the same, for, I have held that both the employees did not come within the definition of ‘employee’ as set out under the Payment of Gratuity Act on the respective dates of retirement on 31.07.1991 and 03.12.1992 respectively. 3. The orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. In view of the fact that the orders impugned are set aside, it is needless to state that the petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the amounts which had been deposited before the authority constituted under the Act, if they have not already been disbursed to the respective employees. Civil Writ Petition No.2946 of 2001 4. The writ petition challenges the award of the gratuity of the Appellate Authority which in modification of the order passed by the Controlling Authority found that the employee was entitled to Civil Writ Petition No.13055 of 2000 - 4 - Rs.1,29,375/-. This amount had been reckoned on the basis that the workman’s last drawn salary was Rs.5,750/-. The only point which is urged before me was as regards the quantum determined by the Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the workman’s last drawn wage was only Rs.3,398/- and on such a reckoning, the gratuity payable was only Rs.76,455/-. According to him, the calculation made by the Appellate Authority making reference to the copy of the pay fixation amount that showed the entitlement of the employee to Rs.5,750/- per month, was not tenable. He would contend that such a pay shall be available only to employees of the Social Welfare Board and not to persons, who had been employed in various projects done under the aegis of the Welfare Board. The learned counsel is, however, unable to produce any record to displace the evidentiary value of the pay fixation document that has been referred to in the order of the Appellate Authority. Even otherwise, I have examined the records summoned from the Appellate Authority and I find that the employee had put on file the statement of fixation of pay under Haryana Civil Services Assured Career Progression Rules, 1998, where the Chairman of the Family and Child Welfare Project, Gurgaon, has referred to the entitlement of the particular employee Smt. Sushila Gulati (the respondent herein) to Rs.5,750/- per month. The correctness of the certificates itself has not been specifically challenged anywhere in the writ petition. There is no basis for an argument that the amount mentioned in the statement given under the seal of the Chairman is not correct and that the employee was not entitled to such a pay at the Civil Writ Petition No.13055 of 2000 -5 - relevant time of superannuation. The order of the Appellate Authority is, under the circumstances, perfectly justified and there is no scope for interference in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. (K.KANNAN) 08.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev