Full Text
LPA 20/2015
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THR REGISTRAR Appellant Represented by: Mr.G.K.Pathak,Advocate
Ms.Namisha Gupta,Advocate for R-3 and R-4
UNIVERSITY OF DELHITHR REGISTRAR Appellant Represented by: Mr.G.K.Pathak,Advocate
Ms.Namisha Gupta,Advocate for R-3 and R-4
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
19.01.2015 CM No.908/2015 in LPA No.20/2015 CMNo.916/2015 in LPANo.21/2015
Allowed subjecttojust exceptions.
LPA Nos.20/2015&21/2015 Page 1 of4 2015:DHC:11585-DB
CMNo.907/2015 in LPA No.20/2015 CMNo.915/2015 in LPA No.21/2015
For the reasons stated in the two applications the delay in the filing the appeals is condoned.
The applications are disposed of.
LPA Nos.20/2015 & 21/2015
ORDER
1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated November 18, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. As per the order the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
3. In the writ petition filed by the appellant the challenge is to an order dated September 30, 2013 passed by the controlling authority under the Payment ofGratuity Act, 1972 requiring the appellant to pay gratuity to some employees. The order ofthe controlling authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority under the Act.
4. The case ofthe appellant as pleaded in para9ofthe writ petition is that it has applied to the Central Government seeking exemption as contemplated by sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972from paying gratuity as per Act in question. As per the appellant, it is governed by the Delhi University Act, 1922 and as per statute 28-A and the Central University Retirement Benefit Rules, 1967 it is competent to have its own gratuity scheme.
5. Sub-Section(2)ofSection 5 ofthe PaymentofGratuity Act,1972 reads as under LPA Nos.20/2015 8l 21120X[5] Page 2of[4] "5(2) The appropriate Government may, hy notification and subject to such conditions as may he specified in the notification, exempt any employees or class of employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to which this Act appliesfrom the operation ofthe provisions ofthis Act, if, in the opinion ofthe appropriate Government,such employee or class of employees are in receipt ofgratuity or pensionary benefits not lessfavourable than the benefits conferred under this Act."
6. Suffice would it be to state thatthe appellant would be entitled to a favourable order if it can show to the appropriate Government that its employees are recipient of a gratuitary or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972.
7. Thus, in any case the benefits which the employees of the appellant have to receive pertaining to gratuity can under no circumstances be less than what is contemplated by the PaymentofGratuity Act, 1972.
8. That apart, the appellant does not dispute the liability to pay gratuity. All what the appellant contends is that it has made a request to the appropriate Government to grant exemption from the provisions of the PaymentofGratuity Act,1972 as per sub-Section(2)ofSection 5.
9. If the appropriate Government is not deciding the request of the appellant the remedy of the appellant is to seek a mandamus against the appropriate Government. Till the exemption is granted, appellant's liability to pay gratuity to its employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall enure and subsist. LPA Nos.20/2015&21/2015 Page3of[4]
10. Dismissing the appeals we would request the appropriate Governmentto decide appellant's request for exemption under the Payment ofGratuity Act,1972 within a period oftwo monthsfrom today.
11. No costs. CMNo.906/2015 in LPANo.20/2015 CMNo.914/2015 in LPANo.21/2015 Dismissed as infructuous.
JANUARY 19,2015 rk PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. »RATIBHA RANI,J.