JUDGMENT Ghose, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated the 17th January, 1977 by T.K. Basu, J. The facts leading to the making of the application by the respondent Jogendra Lal Malakar are set out hereunder. 2. Jogendra Lal Malakar since 1st March, 1932 has been working as a clerk under McNeil & Co. and thereafter was still an employee of the amalgamated company known as McNeill & Magor Ltd. In or about March 1972 the said Jogendra Lal Malakar was drawing a sum of Rs. 992/. On 16th September, 1972 the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came into force. Shortly thereafter on March 2, 1973 Jogendra Lal Malakar retired after service for 41 years. The last pay drawn by him was Rs. 1045/- Jogendra Lal Malakar claimed payment of gratuity to him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; but the company refused to pay him any gratuity on the ground that when the Payment of Gratuity Act came into operation he had been drawing a sum exceeding Rs. 1,000/- 3. Thereafter Jogendra Lal Malakar applied before the Controlling Authority under the Act for a direction for payment of gratuity. By the order dated March 26, 1975 the Controlling Authority directed the company to pay gratuity to Jogendra Lal Malakar. The company preferred an appeal against the said order of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority set aside the decision of the Controlling Authority and held that no gratuity was payable to Jogendra Lal Malakar. The Appellate Authority held that Jogendra Lal Malakar was not an employee within the meaning of the said Act and was not entitled to any gratuity. 4. Against the said order of the Appellate Authority Jogendra Lal Malakar made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the said order and for direction of payment of gratuity to him. The said application was heard by T.K. Basu, J. His lordship by the above mentioned judgment and order quashed the said impugned order of the Appellate Authority and directed payment of gratuity to Jogendra Lal Malakar. 5. This appeal has been preferred by McNeill & Magor, the appellant, against the said judgment and order of T.K. Basu, J. as mentioned hereinbefore. 6. Mr. 5. This appeal has been preferred by McNeill & Magor, the appellant, against the said judgment and order of T.K. Basu, J. as mentioned hereinbefore. 6. Mr. Ginwalla appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the respondent Jogendra Lal Malakar was and is not an employee within the meaning of S. 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The legislature intended to benefit the class of persons defined as employee in S. 2(e) of the said Act. Mr. Ginwalla submitted that the explanation to S. 2 (e) of the said Act is not attracted in the present case. The said section reads as follows to wit:- "Employee means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, not exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem, 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 employments' are express or implied, but does not include any such person who is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, or who holds a civil post under the Central Government or a State Government or who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act 1957 (62 of 1957) Explanation-In the case of an employee, who, having been employed for period of not less than five years on wages not exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem, is employed at any time thereafter on wages exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem, gratuity, in respect of the period during which such employee was employed on wages not exceeding one thousand rupees per menseme, shall be determined on the basis of the wages received by him during that period." 7. Mr. Ginwalla submitted that an employee to be entitled to payment of gratuity must comply with the following three conditions:- (i) He would be in service for five years at least. (ii) His salary would be less than rupees one thousand. (iii) At the time of joining the service the Payment of Gratuity Act must be in operation. 8. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee appearing with Mr. Sunit Dutt, on behalf of the respondent on the contrary submitted that Jogendra Lal Malakar was entitled to the payment of gratuity for he complied with all the conditions laid down in the Payment of Gratuity Act. 8. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee appearing with Mr. Sunit Dutt, on behalf of the respondent on the contrary submitted that Jogendra Lal Malakar was entitled to the payment of gratuity for he complied with all the conditions laid down in the Payment of Gratuity Act. In this connection Mr. Chatterjee also draw our attention to S. 2(c) of the said Act. Section 2(c) of the Act defines continuous service to mean uninterrupted service and includes service which is interrupted by sickness, accident leave, lay off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee concerned, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the commencement of this Act. This section read with S. 4 of the Act which is set out hereinafter makes it abundantly clear that the respondent Jogendra Lal Malakar was and is entitled to gratuity as provided for in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Section 4 of the said Act reads as follows:- "Payment of Gratuity:- (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years:- (a) On his superannuation. (b) On his retirement or resignation. (c) On his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement. Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or if no nomination made, to his heirs. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the week which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. (2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. (2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. Provided that the in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account. Provided further that in the case of an employee employed in a seasonal establishment, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season. (3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed twenty months' wages. (4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee' who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages far the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages far the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1):- (a) The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. (b) The gratuity payable to an employee shall be wholly forfeited. (i) If the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part. (ii) If the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment." 9. We are fortified in our conclusion by the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hindusthan Brown Bovari Ltd. Baroda vs. C.A. Panchal reported in 1977(2) L.L J. page 217, wherein an employee starting at Rs. We are fortified in our conclusion by the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hindusthan Brown Bovari Ltd. Baroda vs. C.A. Panchal reported in 1977(2) L.L J. page 217, wherein an employee starting at Rs. 450/- per mouth and getting Rs. 1200/- per month at the time of resignation was held to be entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. It was held in that case that the intention of the legislature was to grant gratuity to those employees receiving more that Rs. 1000/- per month as salary on the date the Act came into force if they had been getting less than Rs. 1000/- per month as salary earlier. We are in respectful agreement with the said view expressed in the said decision. 10. It should be noted in this connection that in the background of Welfare State this particular legislation has been enacted to do social justice and in our view, it should be construed liberally to extend the benefit granted by it to as many persons as possible. In that view of the matter we are clearly of the opinion that the benefit conferred by this statute extends not only to persons who got salaries of Rs. 1000/- per month at the time the Act came into force but also those employees who used to get less pay earlier but whose pay exceeded Rs. 1000/- per month at the time the Act came into force. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, there shall, however, be no order as to costs. 12. This order shall remain stayed for six weeks from date and the interim orders passed in the appeal shall continue. I agree. Appeal dismissed.