W.P. (C) No. 11684/2005 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 11684/2005 % Judgment delivered on: 08.02.2010 M/s Indian Environmental Society ...... Petitioner Through: Ajay Kumar,Advocate versus Dr. L.M. Saxena ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.Deb Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest? KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral: 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.7.2002 passed by the Controlling Authority and the order dated 3.3.2005 passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby directions were given to the petitioner management to pay the gratuity along with interest to the respondent workman amounting to Rs.98,031/- along with simple interest @10% per annum from 30.11.1999 till the date of actual W.P. (C) No. 11684/2005 Page 2 of 4 payment. 2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that the respondent filed a petition against the petitioner before the Ld. controlling Authority claiming a sum of (i) Rs. 18,880 as salary for the month of November, 1999 and (ii) Rs. 98,030 on account of gratuity. The said claim of the respondent was contested by the petitioner and vide order dated 5.7.2002 the learned Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 98,031 as gratuity with interest @10% within 30 days to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and vide order dated 3.3.2005 the same was dismissed, hence the present petition. 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the notification in the Gazette of India dated September 6, 1997/BHADRA 15, 1919(Part-II-Section 3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central Government extended the application of the Act to the trusts and societies under the Societies Registration Act w.e.f. 06.09.1997 i.e. the date of the notification and therefore the respondent workman who was appointed with the petitioner on 01.10.1990 and resigned on 30.11.1999 would not be entitled to the benefit of said notification. Counsel further submitted that even the respondent workman had failed to prove on record that 10 persons were employed with the petitioner on the relevant W.P. (C) No. 11684/2005 Page 3 of 4 date. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties. 5. The case of the respondent before the said Controlling Authority was that he was appointed with the petitioner management on 1.10.1990 and had resigned on 30.11.1999 after being in service for a period of 9 years and two months with his last drawn salary @ 18,880/-. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that The Payment of Gratuity Act is a piece of social legislation to protect the weaker sections of the society. Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is no longer in the realm of charity but a statutory right given to the employee. The underlying object being that long service carries with it an expectation of appreciation from the employer and a gracious financial assistance to tide over post employment difficulties. So far the applicability of the said Act vis-à-vis the respondent workman is concerned, I am of the considered view that on the date of resignation of the respondent the said Act after being extended by way of notification, became applicable to the petitioner and the benefit will be extended even for the period prior to the date of the notification. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent workman was appointed in the year 1990 therefore he would not be entitled to the benefit of the said statute, once he had resigned after the date when the said notification was extended to societies and trusts where 10 or more W.P. (C) No. 11684/2005 Page 4 of 4 persons were employed. Hence, this measure of social security cannot be denied in the garb of technical fetters. 6. With regard to the other contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent workman had failed to prove that there were 10 or more employees employed on the relevant date of the said notification, I find no substance in the said submission of the management as the respondent workman in his cross-examination clearly stated that there were 11 employees working with the petitioner organization. 7. Hence I find the present petition devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. February 08, 2010 KAILASH GAMBHIR,J pkv