CWP No. 3878 of 1979 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3878 of 1979 Date of Decision: 03-07-2008 Dharam Vir Sharma ......Petitioner Versus The Panjab University, Chandigarh etc. .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of CWP No. 3878 of 1979; CWP No.14374 of 1989; CWP No. 2524 of 1990 and CWP No. 75 of 1991, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken from CWP No. 3878 of 1979. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court claiming gratuity in terms of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), after submitting resignation. The petitioner joined as Stenographer in the Panjab University on 10.12.1971. The petitioner submitted his resignation on 20.4.1979, which was accepted by the University Syndicate on 19.7.1979, after the petitioner rendered 7 years and 7 months of service. The petitioner claimed gratuity under the Act. The same was declined vide order dated 3.10.1979 CWP No. 3878 of 1979 (2) in view of Regulation 15 of the Panjab University Calendar Volume-I, 1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitoner has been paid provident fund in terms of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1952 Act') and therefore, in terms of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, the University being an establishment, the petitioner is entitled to gratuity. However, there is no factual basis in the writ petition regarding the payment of provident fund in terms of the 1952 Act. In the absence of the pleadings of fact, the argument raised, cannot be examined. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise an argument based upon a fact. Faced with such a situation, learned counsel for the petitoner contends that the University is an establishment within the meaning of the commercial establishment as defined in Section 2(1)(iv) of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. The said definition reads as under:- “2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- xx xx xx xx xx xx (iv) “commercial establishment” means any premises wherein, any business, trade or profession is carried on for profit, and includes journalistic or printing establishment and premises in which business of banking, insurance, stocks and shares, brokerage or produce exchange is carried on or which is used as hotel, restaurant, boarding, boarding or eating-house, theatre, cinema or other place of public entertainment or any other place which the Government may declare, by CWP No. 3878 of 1979 (3) notification in the official Gazette, to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Act.” The averments in the writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner joined as Stenographer. In Annexure P.1, it is written that the petitioner was working in the Department of Public Relations & News Magazine, Panjab University, Chandigarh. In the written statement, an objection was raised that the provisions of the Act, are not applicable to the University. It was only in the rejoinder that the petitioner pointed that he was working in the Department of Public Relations & News Magazine, as a Stenographer and that the Department has been publishing the news magazine titled as `The Panjab University News' and that the University has a full fledged Department of Publication Bureau and press. On the strength of such pleadings, an argument is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was engaged in printing establishment, therefore, the petitioner was employed in a commercial establishment, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(iv) of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, he was employed as Stenographer in the Department of Public Relations and News Magazine. Mere fact that such Department publishes a News Magazine, will not, by necessary implication, mean that the petitioner was engaged in a printing establishment. There is no factual basis in respect of the engagement of the petitioner in the printing establishment. His employment is as a Stenographer. In the absence of any plea of his engagement in the job of printing, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner was employed in a commercial establishment. CWP No. 3878 of 1979 (4) Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions. Hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 03-07-2008 ds