RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner - Dr. Harendra madanjit Desai is before this Court being aggrieved of Order dated 24th October, 2003 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Gratuity application No. PGA-39/2001, and Order dated 19th July, 2004 passed by the Appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity act, 1977 in Appeal No. 29/2004, ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is that the petitioner has worked as a part tine anaesthetist and was removed from service after a long service from 15th March, 1958 to March-1995 (paragraph-1 of the petition ). It is his own case that he has been paid his salary, provident fund, family pension and other dues, but, he was not paid gratuity and hence, he moved an application before the controlling Authority under the Payment of gratuity Act. The petitioner was working with the hospital run by respondent No. 1 i. e. Kasturba Vaidyakiya Rahat Mandal, as a part time "anaesthetist- He was attending the operation theatre from 8-0clock in the morning till the operation list was over, which used to be over- by about 2 - Oclock in the afternoon, that on an average operations were performed in the hospital; that there was no other Anaesthetist in the hospital, meaning thereby, he was attending all the operations as Anaesthetist, and, that in addition to the aforesaid duties, he was also required to attend all the emergency calls, which, by its very nature, could be at any time, on any day, and at a very she notice. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has not made a categorical statement about his last drawn salary. In this regard, he has made the following averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition?". . . . . . . The operation theatre register of the Hospital has got elaborate record of the operations, name of doctors, name of patients and the time and other relevant details, Petitioner had to resign from this Job when two fresh Anaesthetists were recruited in 1997 and a salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month was being paid to them. This was also increased to Rs. 9,0001 - in the year 2000. This discriminatory treatment to the petitioner after about 29 years of since service, disturbed the petitioner and he resigned, from the job. . . 7,000/- per month was being paid to them. This was also increased to Rs. 9,0001 - in the year 2000. This discriminatory treatment to the petitioner after about 29 years of since service, disturbed the petitioner and he resigned, from the job. . . . . . . . . . "in the first paragraph, it is stated that he had put in service from 15th March, 1958 to March-1995. It is stated that,"in this background, the petitioner approached the Controlling Authority, respondent No. 3 with an application date 10. 03. 2003 after all his attempt for persuasion failed with the Hospital authorities, he sought the gratuity for the period from 13. 03. 1958 to 26. 04. 2000 i. e. for 42 years at the salary of Rs. 9,000/- P. M. The total amount was estimated at Rs. 2. 18. 076/ -. . . . In the first paragraph, the servic period is only upto 1995 and in the thir paragraph, it is mentioned to be 1997 as it is stated that he had put in about 39 years service, which, then increases to 42 years i. e. 15th March, 1958 to 26th April, 2000. The petitioner has not stated that he was paid salary of Rs. 9,000=00 at the time of cessation of his services and, therefore, he is entitled to gratuity on that basis. ( 4 ) ON enquiry, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, stated that a statement is made in the petition. The learned Advocate invited the attention of the court to the contents of the application filed before the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, wherein, in paragraph-1, it is stated that:"i, applicant, joined as anaesthetist in the opponent-Establishment on 19th march, 1958. Since then, till I retired, by submitting voluntary resignation on 26th april, 2000, I had continuously discharged my duties. I, applicant, was receiving monthly salary of Rs. 150=00 at the time of joining the duty with the opponent-Establishment, which increased to Rs. 1,625=00 in January - 1986 and in 1787, I was paid Rs. 2,000=00 on last pay increase ofrs,375=00 being given by the opponent-Establishment, in October- 1987, I, applicant, was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,000. "in paragraph-4, it is stated that,"i, applicant, repeatedly made representation to the opponent Establishment, which was not granted. I, applicant, had received the last salary on 1. 5. 1993. 2,000=00 on last pay increase ofrs,375=00 being given by the opponent-Establishment, in October- 1987, I, applicant, was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,000. "in paragraph-4, it is stated that,"i, applicant, repeatedly made representation to the opponent Establishment, which was not granted. I, applicant, had received the last salary on 1. 5. 1993. Thereafter, though I discharged my duties with the opponent-Establishment, as I was not given the legal, proper and reasonable pay increase, which was stopped by the opponent-Establishment illegally and in an improper manner, I had not taken any wages. "in paragraph-5, it is stated that,"if applicant, was granted by the opponent-Establishment in January-1986, a monthly salary of Rs. 1,650=00 only and by a monthly increase of Rs. 350=00 in October - 1987, (in paragraph-3, monthly increase is mentioned to be Rs. 375=00), my salary had become Rs. 2,000=00 per month. "the petitioner has then stated that, the opponent-Establishment had arrived at a settlement with doctors and other members of the staff, but, he was not included in that settlement; that he was entitled to get pay increase, equivalent to last drawn salary. In support thereof, it is stated by the applicant that in the year 1997, two Anaesthetists were engaged by the opponent-Establishment at a monthly salary of Rs. 7,000=00, which was increased to rs. 9,000=00 in the year 2000. The applicant has mentioned in paragraph-6 of the application that, two anaesthetists recruited by the opponent- establishment, who were paid monthly salary of Rs. 7,000=00, were required to discharge duties only for 8 days in a month, their salary was increased to Rs. 9,000=00 in the year 2000. The case of the petitioner is that though these appointees were much junior to the applicant, possessing much less experience than the applicant, they mere discharging the duties for less period than the applicant and had joined the services later than the petitioner; he be paid by the opponent-Establishment at the rate of rs. 9,000=00 per month". In support of his application, the applicant relied upon a decision of Allahabad high Court, in Writ Petition No. 23548 of 1998, dated 3rd February, 1999, in the matter between Rajendra Deva and additional Labour Commissioner Kanpur v/s. Appellate Authority. The petitioner has produced xerox copies of pay slips, four in number; one of december-1978 wherein monthly salary shown to be is Rs. The petitioner has produced xerox copies of pay slips, four in number; one of december-1978 wherein monthly salary shown to be is Rs. 800=00, second of March- 1979 showing monthly salary of Rs,1,050=00, third of February-1980 showing monthly salary of Rs. 1,075-00 and fourth of December- 1987 showing monthly salary of Rs. 2,000=00. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is that in view of the fact that the petitioner was paid month to month and even provident fund was deducted, therefore, for all purposes, he has raised three issues, namely, (i) Whether the, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the opponent-Establishment being a public trust; (ii) Whether the applicant falls within the definition of term, employee, as contained in Clause (e) of section-2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and, (iii) Whether the applicant is entitled to the gratuity, as prayed for. The controlling Authority has answered the first issue, in affirmative and second and third issues in negative. 10. The definition of the terms, employee, contained in Clause- (e) of Section- (2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 reads as under;" (E) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, 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 express 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. "the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, while deciding issue No. 2, has recorded that the applicant is a competent doctor and is having his own dispensary. Besides that, he is rendering services in the opponent-establishment on "call on basis" as Anaesthetist for so many years, that he has not rendered permanent services to any one institution; that he had been rendering services "as and when required" during operation and, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of the term, employee, under Clause- (e) of Section-2 of the Act. This is a "finding of fact, which this court does not find it appropriate to interfere with, as there are no convincing reasons for the same. 11. The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has taken into consideration all relevant factors and has not found any substance in the appeal and has rejected the same. The Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration various decisions of the High Court as well as the honourable the Apex Court cited before it. In the result, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. .