JUDGMENT : R.M. Borde, J. Heard the respective counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent rule is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 3. The petition presented by the employee raising inception to the order passed by Respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner of Labour. Respondent No. 4 was in the employment of the Petitioner-institution for a period between 1963 to 2002. After attaining the age of superannuation, the employee presented an application to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming disbursement of gratuity amount along with the interest. The application tendered by the employee was opposed on several grounds. It is contended that apart from the applicant-employee there are several employees in the employment of the Petitioner but the establishment did not employ more than ten employees at any point of time. It is also canvassed that the employer-establishment cannot be covered under the provisions of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is specifically contended that the Petitioner herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it cannot be described as an establishment or commercial establishment within the meaning of definition provided under the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948. It is thus contended that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be invoked against the Petitioner thereby holding the Respondent-employee entitled to seek recovery of amount towards the gratuity. So far as the question in respect of employing more than ten employees at the relevant time, the objection was specifically raised by the employer before the original authority contending that the establishment did not employ more than ten employees and as such cannot be held responsible for payment of gratuity. This aspect has been considered by the fact finding authority and after considering the facts placed on record a finding of fact has been recorded that the employer had employed more than ten employees during the period in respect of coverage claimed by the employee. The findings based on appreciation of evidence recorded by the fact finding Authority, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has been confirmed by the appellate Authority and the Additional Commissioner of Labour. The findings based on appreciation of evidence recorded by the fact finding Authority, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has been confirmed by the appellate Authority and the Additional Commissioner of Labour. The findings reached by the Appellate Authority as well as the Controlling Authority on appreciation of evidence that the employer employed more than ten employees and as such the establishment can be brought under the purview of provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act need not be interfered with in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. The another aspect which has been raised by the Petitioner-employer needs serious consideration. By inviting my attention to Section 1(3), (b) and (c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it is contended that, the Act shall apply to every shop or establishments within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months. Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 provides the coverage in respect of such other establishments in which ten or more employees are employed or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. Inviting my attention to the above provisions, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner-employer is not an establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishment in the State. It is also further contended that as the Petitioner-establishment cannot be considered as shop or establishment by invoking the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act even after assuming that the establishment is said to have been brought within the fold of the applicability of the Act. It has to be considered to have been covered by the Act from the date of issuance of notification by the Central Government, which in fact, has been brought out in the year 1997. It is thus contended that the order passed by both the Authorities below are against the provisions of law. 5. It has to be considered to have been covered by the Act from the date of issuance of notification by the Central Government, which in fact, has been brought out in the year 1997. It is thus contended that the order passed by both the Authorities below are against the provisions of law. 5. My attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 2 Sub-section (4) of The Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948 which defines "Commercial establishment" as under: Commercial establishment" means an establishment which carries on, any business, trade or profession or any work in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, any business, trade or profession and includes an establishment of any legal practitioner, medical practitioner, architect, engineer, accountant, tax consultant or any other technical or professional consultant and also includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), and a charitable or other trust, whether registered or not, which carries on whether for purposes of gain or not, any business, trade or profession or work in connection with or incidental or ancillary thereto but does not include a factory, shop, residential hotel, restaurant, eating houses, theater or other place of public amusement or entertainment; Sub-section (8) of Section 2 of the Act defines "Establishment" as under: Establishment" means a shop, commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant, eating house, theater, or other place of public amusement or entertainment to which this Act applies and includes such other establishment as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be an establishment for the purposes of this Act. On consideration of the definition of "Commercial establishment", which itself can be considered as an establishment within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 2 and the establishment which carries on any business, trade or profession or any work in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to, any business, trade or profession whether it is charitable or otherwise and conducted by the society registered under the Societies Registration Act and a charitable or other establishment can be brought within the fold of "Commercial Establishment". "Commercial establishment" is an 'establishment' within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 2 of the Act. 6. "Commercial establishment" is an 'establishment' within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 2 of the Act. 6. It is urged by the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 that the establishment carried by the societies or trust whether registered or not whether charitable in nature which carries on business whether for purposes of gain or not, can be brought within the fold of definition of "establishment" and as such is amenable to the coverage as contemplated by the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. Reliance is place on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Premlata Digambar Rao Deo Vs. Principal, St. Philomine's Convent High School, Nasik Road and Others, (1997) 4 ALLMR 377. The Petitioner before the Division Bench was employed by the unaided educational institution. The employee claimed arrears of gratuity amount. The employer, however, advanced contention before the Division Bench that the unaided educational institution is not an establishment within the meaning of the Act, 1948 and as such the employee is not amenable for coverage under the Payment of Gratuity Act. While dealing with the issue, the Division Bench has considered all the relevant provisions of of the Act and has recorded conclusion that the employer in the reported judgment is an "establishment" within the definition of The Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948 and as such amenable for coverage under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Division Bench of this Court, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shri B.P. Hira, Works Manager, Central Railway, Parel, Bombay etc. Vs. Shri C.M. Pradhan etc., AIR 1959 SC 1226 , has observed thus: ...In our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in B.P. Hira, Works Manager, Central Railway, Parel v. C.M. Pradhan (supra) lends support to Mr. Apte's contention that an educational 'establishment' is an establishment under the provisions of the Establishments Act. In this view of the matter, we cannot accede to the submission of Mr. Bukhari that the 1st Respondent School is not an 'establishment' as contemplated by the said Act. It is also observed in the judgment that the legislature has also chosen not to define 'establishment' but in order to give a widest possible meaning it has provided for reference to any law for the time being in force in relation to the Shops and Establishments in a State. It is also observed in the judgment that the legislature has also chosen not to define 'establishment' but in order to give a widest possible meaning it has provided for reference to any law for the time being in force in relation to the Shops and Establishments in a State. Thus, it was concluded that the teachers working in primary schools which are receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and are thus aided primary schools, gratuity is made payable. The same is also available to teachers of Government Schools. That leaves out only the schools which are unaided. The provisions of the said Gratuity Act are in addition to the rights conferred on an employee under the conditions of service contained in any contract or any Act. Section 5 of the said Gratuity Act specifically provides for exemption to an establishment and/or to an employee or class of employees only when such employee or class of employees are in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act. Thus, for the reasons set out in judgment, the Petitioner in the reported matter was held eligible for claiming the benefits of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 7. Similar view has been taken in respect of a non commercial society/charitable organization, namely: Indian Red Cross Society in a matter between Indian Red-Cross Society Vs. Vidyaben H. Vyas, (2003) 3 GLR 2684 . The learned single Judge of Gujarat High Court was of the view that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act applies to non commercial establishments such as Red Cross Society and as such the employee employed by the said Society is entitled to receive the amount towards gratuity. Reliance is also placed on judgment in the matter of Secretary, Board of Secondary Education and Teachers' Training and Others Vs. Sunil Kumarlal and Others, (2000) 2 LLJ 263 . It is held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the commercial establishment defined in Section 24 of the M. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 includes a society registered under the M. P. Societies Registration Act, 1959 and as such it is amenable to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. It is held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the commercial establishment defined in Section 24 of the M. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 includes a society registered under the M. P. Societies Registration Act, 1959 and as such it is amenable to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act. Similar view is adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rula Krishi Kendra v. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Rula Krishi Kendra Vs. Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act and Others, (1994) 3 LLJ 393. The Apex Court, in the matter of Jotindra Nath Roy Vs. Surendra Bikram Singh Agarwal and others, (1996) 4 SCC 403 has held that the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Rules, 1952 be made applicable to the Trust Estate of Babu Lal Agarwal in relation to employees of the said Trust being an establishment under the said Act. It was therefore held that as the Trust has been treated to be an establishment, the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act would be attracted and the employee employed by the Trust would be entitled to claim benefit under the said Act. 8. The counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strongly contended that the Central Government has issued notification only on August 20, 1997 in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and has brought the trust or societies, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any other law with respect to societies for the time being in force in any State, in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed within the fold of applicability of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is thus contended that as the coverage is extended by bringing the notification on August 20, 1997, the provisions of the Act can be made applicable only after issuance of notification by the Central Government. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Shri Gurudeo Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Anr. v. Madhav Narayan Mahakode and Ors. 1996 I LLJ 513. A question is raised as to whether a Trust registered under the local Act could be brought within the purview of the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the matter of Shri Gurudeo Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Anr. v. Madhav Narayan Mahakode and Ors. 1996 I LLJ 513. A question is raised as to whether a Trust registered under the local Act could be brought within the purview of the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Petitioner-institution is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and the same is society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. The provisions of Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are required to be read in harmonious manner and by virtue of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1, every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, is brought within the scope of applicability of the Act. Clause (c) applies to such other establishment or class of establishments which are brought within the fold of applicability of Act on issuance of notification by the Central Government. On perusal of Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, 1972, it is clear that provisions of Clause (c) will not obviously apply in the instant matter as the Petitioner is an establishment within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 1 of the Act, 1948 and as such is brought within the scope of applicability of the Act. The issuance of notification by the Central Government at a later point of time has no consequence. The case of the Petitioner institution is covered by sub Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, 1972. The notification issued by the Central Government would extend the coverage of provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act to the establishment or the societies or the Trust which do not come within the purview of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. The issuance of notification by the Central Government in the year 1997, therefore, does not have any consequence in respect of applicability of the provisions of the Act in the instant matter. The issuance of notification by the Central Government in the year 1997, therefore, does not have any consequence in respect of applicability of the provisions of the Act in the instant matter. The arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the provisions of the Acts could apply only after the date of notification by the Central Government is, therefore, not acceptable. 9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petition does not call for any interference. Rule is discharged accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.