Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act whereby the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of Controlling Authority and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 76,380/- to the respondent No. 2 towards gratuity.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent No. 2 was terminated from service by the petitioner after holding an enquiry into the misconduct of the respondent No. 2 on 30.1.1968. He challenged this termination after 10 years in 1978. By an award dated 6.11.1995, the Labour Court held the termination of the respondent No. 2 as illegal. However, Labour Court observed that keeping in view the date of birth of the respondent No. 2 being 4.3.1933, he reached superannuation on 31.3.1991. He was, thereforee, entitled to back wages w.e.f. 19.8.1978 till 31.3.1991. The Labour Court did not award any relief to the Appellant for the period 31.1.1968 to 18.8.1978 because of the fact that the respondent No. 2 had approached the appropriate government after a period of 10 years. The Labour Court also observed that the respondent workman was not entitled to any other relief claimed in the petition in view of the circumstances of the case (his raising industrial dispute after 10 years being one of the circumstances). This award was challenged by the petitioner first in High Court and then in Supreme Court. The SLP filed in Supreme Curt was dismissed. However, Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP, observed:. We have seen the counter filed by respondent No. 1. He has clearly stated that Rs. 4 lacs was demanded by him and the same is paid to him. In view of this submission of learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on default of appearance as well as on merits.
3. The respondent No. 2 approached the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act and made an application claiming gratuity for the entire service period up to his retirement. The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dismissed the application of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that last drawn wages of the respondent was Rs. 5092/-. The respondent No. 2 superannuated on 31.3.1991, he shall be governed by the provision of the Act as applicable in March, 1991. At that time the ceiling of wages for grant of gratuity was Rs. 2500/- p.m. and the maximum gratuity amount to which an employee was entitled was Rs. 50,000/-. The respondent whose salary was Rs. 5092/- was not covered under the payment of gratuity act 1972 as it stood in March, 1991.
4. The Appellate Authority reversed the order of Controlling Authority holding that the claim of Appellant for gratuity would not be affected by the ceiling imposed by the Act in view of later amendment of law and in view of the fact that SLP of the petitioner was dismissed in the year 2000. The definition of employee as in 1991 would not be applicable on respondent No. 2 because the judgment of Supreme Court in SLP was delivered on 24.4.2000 and definition of employee as applicable in the year 2000 shall be applicable to the respondent No. 2.
5. The order of the Appellate Tribunal has been challenged on the ground of perversity and being contrary to the law.
6. The respondent No. 2 made his claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act because of his superannuation. The date of his superannuation is the only relevant date to decide the applicability of provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. The dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court in the year 2000, would not change the date of superannuation of the respondent from 1991 to year 2000. The respondent would be governed by the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act as prevalent in 1991. It is settled law that an appeal or SLP is continuation of the initial proceedings and the order of the Tribunal merges into the final order as passed by the superior court. The Tribunal's order that the respondent superannuated on 31.3.1991, became final. The Appellate Authority committed grave error in law by holding that the respondent No. 2 would not be governed by the rules and law of Payment of Gratuity as prevalent on 31.3.1991. The definition of employee in unamended Payment of Gratuity Act as on 31.3.1991 was as under:
'employee' means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages 'not exceeding two thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem, or such higher amount as the Central Government may, having regard to the general level of wages by notification specify, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are expressed or implied, '[and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.]
7. I find that the respondent who was admittedly earning more than Rs. 5,000/- in 1978 and his last drawn wages was Rs. 5,092/- was not covered under Payment of Gratuity Act.
8. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 11.12.2001, is perverse and is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed.