Gurmukh Singh Vs Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act-Cum-Labour Commissioner, Punjab Sas

impugned order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which claim of the petitioner (appellant herein) for grant of gratuity along with interest @ 18% has been rejected on the ground that as there were less than 10 people working with the respondent-society, therefore, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Gratuity Act, 1972 ” is not applicable to respondent No.3, so as to claim the benefit of gratuity.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though at the time when the gratuity claim was raised, there were only four persons working with the respondent-Society, but prior to that there were 10 people working with the respondent-society during the period from 01.05.1977 to 30.06.1978. Learned counsel submits that the said fact has not been taken

¶15

into account by the learned Single Judge while denying the benefit of Payment of Gratuity to the appellant. Learned counsel also submits that ANIL KUMAR there is a resolution passed dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P-2) by the 2026.07.27 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

LPA-1307-2026(O&M)

¶17

[2

¶18

respondent-Society to the effect that the gratuity will be paid to the appellant in installment, hence now respondent-Society is estopped from turning around to say that the gratuity is not admissible to the appellant under the Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶19

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with his able assistance.

¶20

It may be noticed that the gratuity is only payable under the Gratuity Act, 1972 , in case 10 or more employees are working with the respondent-Society. Once, the findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge that despite due opportunity, the appellant has not been able to prove that 10 or more employees were working with the respondent-Society, the prayer that Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the respondent-Society, as raised in the present appeal, cannot be accepted.

¶21

Even if, any resolution is passed by the Committee accepting the grant of payment of gratuity, the same cannot be treated as estoppel against the respondent-Society as Society is not covered under the Gratuity Act, 1972 and hence there is no estoppel against the respondent-Society as per law. Hence, the claim that a resolution passed by the respondent-Society and same will entitle gratuity be paid to the appellant under the Gratuity Act, 1972, despite the fact that the same is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as 10 or more employees are not working with the the respondent-Society, such contention as raised by the appellant, cannot be accepted.

¶22

The argument advance by the learned counsel for the appellant

¶23

that 10 employees were working with the respondent-Society during the

¶24

ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.27 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

LPA-1307-2026(O&M)

¶26

[3

¶27

period from 01.05.1977 to 30.06.1978, but name of any such employee have not been placed before this Court even the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that despite the opportunity given, the appellant has not been able to prove that there were 10 employees working with the respondentSociety, so as to bring such society under domain of the Gratuity Act, 1972, has gone unrebutted.

¶28

7. No other arguments raised.

¶29

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and also in the absence of any evidence brought before this Court to prove that the fact and findings recorded by the learned Single is perverse, no ground is made out for

¶30

any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶31