JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dt. 16.2.2000 in P.G.A.No.6 of 1999 passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order dt. 17.7.1999 in PGC.No.988 of 1998 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Rules. Heard Sri. C. Kodanda Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents consistently. Brief facts essential for considering this writ petition are as follows: The 3rd respondent initially worked as a Technician in one of the Departments of Siddhartha Academy of General & Technical Education, Vijayawada and later as a Mechanic from 26.2.1980 to 31.5.1995. He retired from the service on 31.5.1995 on attaining the age of superannuation. 34 months after his retirement, the 3rd respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent on 4.3.1998 purportedly under Section 7 (4)(b) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 contending that he is eligible to receive gratuity under the provisions of the Act. The 2nd respondent allowed the claim and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.28,995/- with 18% interest, by the order dt. 17.7.1999. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners preferred an appeal PGA. No.6 of 1999 before the 1st respondent contending inter alia that the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Rules made thereunder do not apply to the case of the 3rd respondent and he is not entitled for any gratuity. However, the 1st respondent rejected the contention of the petitioners and by the order dt. 16.2.2000 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Questioning the validity of the order of the 1st respondent confirming the order of the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner college being an educational institution is not covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act at the relevant point of time i.e. on 31.5.1995 on which date the 3rd respondent retired from service. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner college being an educational institution is not covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act at the relevant point of time i.e. on 31.5.1995 on which date the 3rd respondent retired from service. It is further stated that Section 1(3) of Payment of Gratuity Act shall apply to every factory, mine, oil field, plantation, fort, railway company, every shop and establishment in which 10 or more persons employed and that the Central Government is empowered to notify such other establishments or class of establishments for the purposes of this Act and that the educational institutions cannot be treated as establishments unless the same are notified by the Central Government. It is further stated that no notification was issued under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act notifying that the Educational Institutions are establishments for the purposes of this Act. It is asserted that the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the Payment of Gratuity Act has notified vide Notification in S.O.No.1080 dt.3.4.197 notifying that the Educational Institutions in which 10 or more persons are employed on any day preceding 12 months as establishments to which the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act shall apply. It was stipulated that the said Notification shall come into effect from the date of publication of the notification and that the said Notification was published in the official Gazette of India on 19.4.1997 and therefore the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act are not applicable to the Educational Institutions prior to the said notification i.e. prior to 19.4.1997. It is further stated that as the 3rd respondent retired from service on 31.5.1995 i.e. prior to the publication of the notification, he is not entitled to claim gratuity. In the circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent dt. 16.2.2000 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dt.17.7.1999 is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. The 1st respondent relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of V. Venkateswara Rao vs. Chairman/Governing Body S.M.V.M. Polytechnic, Tanuku ( 1997 (4) ALT 336 (DB)), confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent and dismissed the appeal by the order impugned in this writ petition. The 1st respondent relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of V. Venkateswara Rao vs. Chairman/Governing Body S.M.V.M. Polytechnic, Tanuku ( 1997 (4) ALT 336 (DB)), confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent and dismissed the appeal by the order impugned in this writ petition. In the said decision, this Court while dealing with Section 1(3)(b) of the Act held that any institution in which activity of imparting knowledge or training is systematically carried on is an establishment within the meaning of ‘establishment’ for the purpose of Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the petitioner/Polytechnic is such an establishment and employees of such polytechnic are entitled to gratuity. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that since the notification issued by the Central Government is not retrospective in operation, the 1st respondent ought not to have confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the Notification S.O.No.1080 dt.3.4.1997 as it was specified that the said notification shall come into force with effect from the date on which it was published in official Gazette, the said Notification cannot be given retrospective effect. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Shakti Tubes Ltd., vs. State of Bihar ( (2009) 7 SCC 673 ), wherein the Supreme Court interpreting retrospective/retroactive operation/retrospectivity of ‘Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993’ relying on its decision in Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs. J.D. Pharmaceuticals ( (2005) 13 SCC 19 ), held as under: “Generally an Act should always be regarded as prospective in nature unless the legislature has clearly intended the provisions of the said Act to be made applicable with retrospective effect. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the 1993 Act in question is a welfare legislation which was enacted to protect the interest of the suppliers, especially suppliers of the nature of a small scale industry. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the 1993 Act in question is a welfare legislation which was enacted to protect the interest of the suppliers, especially suppliers of the nature of a small scale industry. But at the same time, the intention and the purpose of the Act cannot be lost sight of and the Act in question cannot be given a retrospective effect so long as such an intention is not clearly made out and derived from the Act itself.” Relying on its earlier decision in Small Scale Industries Case (supra), the Supreme Court in Shakti Tubes Case (supra) held that as the supply order having been placed prior to the coming into force of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (the Act), any supply made pursuant to the said supply orders would be governed not by the provisions of the 1993 Act but by the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. and there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the supply order was placed with the respondents on 16.7.1992 for supply of the pipes, which date is admittedly prior to the date on which the Act came into effect i.e. on 23.9.1992. To appreciate the case on hand, it is necessary to extract the Notification S.O.No.1080 dt. 3.4.1997 issued by the Central Government, which reads as under: “S.O. 1080….In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (39 of 1972), the Central Government hereby specifies the educational institutions in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day preceding 12 months as a class of establishments to which the said Act shall apply with effect from the date of publication of this notification. Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall affect the operation of the notification of the Ministry of Labour S.O.239 dated 8th January, 1982.” From the above Notification, it is clear that the Central Government specified educational institutions in which 10 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day preceding 12 months as a class of establishments and the Notification is operative only with effect from the date on which it was published in official Gazette. Since the notification was published in the official Gazette on 3.4.1997, it is prospective from the said date. The 3rd respondent retired from service on 31.5.1995 i.e. prior to the publication of Notification and therefore the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act do not apply to the case of the 3rd respondent to claim gratuity. Though the order dt. 16.2.2000 passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order dt. 17.7.1999 passed by the 2nd respondent is based on the decision of this Court 1st Supra, in view of the decision of the Supreme (supra), the impugned order is contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court and the order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed. For the foregoing reasons, the order dt.16.2.2000 passed by the 1st respondent in PGA.No.6 of 1999 confirming the order dt.17.7.1999 passed by the 2nd respondent in PGC.No.988 of 1998 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.