i^ f^ k IN THE HIGH COUP.T CF MM5HYA PRM)ESH XT J^ PUR,2,M.,P. >NO.S^5:_ Misc^ Petition No< of 1990 Petitionerg Respondeiits § ^^^-^ ^'^'•^ a^-^yj^ Raipur' Development Authority Raipur^ throiigh its Chief Sxecutive Officer^ Raipur^.: M^P<» - • Vs» (1) Smt ^ Sonsir^ wi fe of 1 a,te Shri Jalam^ resident of Gudh-iyari^ e/o &ITTJC office^ Sharad Chowlc^ P..aipur.^' N^P^ (2) Shri Paras Ram^ aged 32 years^ resident ©fGuahiyari^ C/o AITUC office» Shsrad Cho^^. Raipur^ M<,P« (3) Deputy Labou^r CGrmissioner^. Raipur^ Disfrict Raxpur^ M^P^ <y/ ^ (^) Assistant Lebotir Coraraissioner» Raipur, 7"'^ Districfc Raipur^ M^Pa PETITlai' UNDER aRTICLES 226 & 227 CWSTITtlTICN a? raDIA FOR VmiTS IN THE KXTURE OF CERTIORARI, M^ND&MUS ErTC. MD FCR * .^PROPRI^ffE FmTHER DI R^CTI® S« The petitit&Ber above named begs to submit as unders J i s/ ,?.^ :^^^^~~~M^ A^^ U1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRiT PETITiON N0.3143 OF 1990 Petitioner versus Respondents Raipur Development Authority, Raipur Smt. Sonsir and others Present : Ms. Madhu Modi, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Deepaii Pandey, Panel Lawyer for respondents No.3 and 4. None appears for respondents No.1 and 2. ORDER (Passed on 5tn of December, 2006) The petitioner is a body notified under Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam, 1973'). The petitioner - Authority is engaged in the activity of devetopment of Raipur City by construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges, eto. to provide basic amenities to the citizens residing within its iimits. 2. The deceased Jalam, husband of respondent No.1 and fether of respondent No.2, was In the service of the petitloner - Authority working as Chowkidar. On his resignation with effect from 26- 7-1988, the deceased Jalam made an appiication for grant of gratuity f for the period he worked as Chowkidar betfveen 1977 to 26-7-1988 (Annexure P-1). 3. Being aggrieved, a dispute v/as raised before the Assistant Labour Commlssioner, Raipur. The Assistant Labour Commissloner ~ Controliing Authority, under ths Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (henceforth 'the Act, 1972'), by order dated 27-3-1989 (Annexure P-4). dlrected the petitloner - Authority to make payment of gratulty to the tune of Rs.3,168/- within a period of one month. failing which, a simpie Intersst at the rate of 10% was payabie on the gratulty. 4. Being aggrieved, the petltloner - Authority flled an appea! before the appe!!ate authority - Deputy Labour Commissionsr under the Act, 1972. The appellate authority ~ Deputy Labour Commlssioner under the Act, 1972, by order dated 26-10-1990 (Annexure P-7), dismlssed the appeal. ho!ding as under:- UA. .......... Before taking this point it wouid be necessary to look to the nature of duties, functlons which the R.D.A. performs. Sn particular the Establishment of the R.DA. is engaged In reiatlon to work of construction, deveiopment, or maintenance of buildings, roads and bridgs and to provlde baslc amenities to the citlzens residing withln its iimits thus the activlties of the R.D.A. undoubted!y faiis within the ambit of the term "industrial Establlshment" as defined under Section 2(ii)(g) of the Payment of Wages Act. The term used under Section 1 (3)(b) "any Law for the tlme being enforce" cannot have a restricted scope of appiication, the !aw may be a Centra! Law or the State Law is Immaterial. This view has been upheid by their iordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. The Labour Court Jullundhar and other Respondents A.I.R. 1979 SC - Page 1981. Accordingiy having reiiance on the above pronouncement i am of the vlew that the Provlsions of the Payment of Gratuity Act are applicable to the estabiishment ofthe appeiiants." 5. The petitloner ann Authorifr^ has fiSed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challeneing the valldity of the order dated 27-3-1989 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissloner under the Act, 1972 and the order dated 26-10" 1990 (Annexure P-7) passsd by the appsllate authority - Deputy Labour Commlssioner underthe Act, 1972. S. Ms. Madhu Modi, learned counse! appearing for the petitioner - Authority, submits that the petltioner - Authority is not a shop or establlshment within the meaning of the Shops and Establishments Act as defined in Section 1(3)(b) ofthe Act, 1972. 7. Ms. Deepaii Pandey, learned Panei Lawyer appearing for respondents No.3 and 4, per contra, supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 8. After hearing learned counsei appearing for the parties, perusing the documents on record and golng through the provisjons, it Is evldent that the petitioner - Authority has more than ten employees in its actlvities of constructlon and deveiopment of buiSdings, roads, •'^ ;"'*N. bridges, ete. to provsde basic amenities to the residents of Raipur City. The petjtioner ~ Authority is not performlng any sovereign function. The provlslons of Sectlon 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972 are comprehensive and the petitloner - Authority is covered under it. By virtue of the provisions of the Adhlnlyam, 1973, the petltioner - Authority is an estabiishment and it Is not necessary to search provislons of any other enactment to deflne estabilshment for the purpose ofthe provisions oftheAct, 1972. 9. There Is no error apparent on the face of the record and no snflrmity or irrsgularity has been committed by the authorlties below In passlng the Impugned orders. Thus, there Is no warrant to interfere wlth the impugned orders dated 27-3-1989 (Annexure P"4) and dated 26-10-1990 (Annexure P-7) passed by the authoritles below. 10. costs. The writ petition is accordingly dlsmissed. No order as to Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopal