Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Agarwal Primary School at Ajmer on the ground that the gratuity and retiral benefit is not payable to the Respondent No. 3 as the appellant-institution is running only a primary school with six employees and, therefore, the Judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2005 (5) SCC 275 as also the Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court, by which it has been held that the employees of private institutions also would be eligible to payment of gratuity and retiral benefits, are not applicable on the appellant-institution. It was submitted by the Counsel for appellant that although the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have been pleased to hold that gratuity and retiral benefit is payable to the employees of non-Government/private institutions, it has no where been considered in these cases as to whether this benefit could accrue in favour of the employees, where the number of employees is less than ten. 2. Initially we felt impressed with this part of argument of the Counsel for appellant, but on hearing the reply of the Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, we find that this argument also is of no assistance to the appellant-institution, as it was brought to the notice of this Court by the Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 that the appellant-institution is not merely a primary school, but it is a part of the society, which runs school upto class 12th. 3. This school is run by a society-Agarwal Pathshala Sabha, which is running the institutions upto Class 12th and merely because one unit of the Society in the city is being run in a particular premise, that cannot be treated as a separate institution, so as to allow the appellant to contend that it is not liable to make payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits to its retired employees on the premise that it has less than six employees. 4. 4. Counsel for the appellant is not in a position to refute the fact that the appellant-institution is not running merely a primary school, but it is running the school upto Class 12th and from this it has to be inferred that this argument of running the appellant-primary school having only six employees, has been raised merely to obviate the implementation of the Judgment and order of the Apex Court. 5. If a particular provision for payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits by a non Government institution has been made and the institution is held liable to make the payment even by the Apex Court, the said provision cannot be allowed to be duped by taking an escape route by urging that a particular school of the society is having the staff of only six, so as to contend that the liability to make payment of gratuity to its employees can be given a go-bye in this manner. The rule having been upheld upto the Supreme Court for payment of gratuity to employees of a private/ non Government institution obviously is meant to be implemented in letter and spirit and, therefore, it is not open for an institution to absolve or exempt itself from making such payment by taking a ground of the nature, referred to here-in-above. This argument, which has been raised by the appellant-institution is obviously to get over the legal liability, which has been imposed on it and the same being contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, we do not find any substance to entertain the same. 6. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed at the admission stage itself .