JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition the petitioner Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "BSNL") has challenged order directing the petitioner BSNL to pay Rs. 53,807/- with 10% interest per annum towards gratuity to the respondent. 3. By order dated 6.8.2007 the controlling authority appointed under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act decided the claim application filed by present respondent and held that the claimant would fall within purview of definition of the term "employee" and entitled for gratuity in accordance with the provisions under the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said conclusion, decision and the directions, the petitioner BSNL has taken out present petition. 5. The amount awarded by the controlling authority is deposited by the petitioner in view of the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Court. The said amount appears to have been invested in Fixed Deposit with Nationalized Bank. 6. So far as factual background is concerned, the petitioner has claimed that the respondent herein was working as part time Sweeper/Hamal from July 1981 and she worked until 31.7.2003. 6.1 It is claimed by the petitioner BSNL that at later stage the service of the respondent was regularized as full time casual labourer w.e.f. 1.10.2000 and she worked as such until 4.8.2003. 6.2 It is also claimed that the respondent retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 25.3.2004. 6.3 It is claimed that vide order dated 4.8.2003 the respondent was regularized with retrospective effect as full time casual labourer. 6.4 In such factual background when the petitioner did not pay gratuity to the respondent after she was superannuated, the respondent approached the controlling authority and filed claim application which was registered as case No. 48(22)/2007 and the controlling authority allowed the said application vide order dated 6.8.2007. 7. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the order on short and singular ground i.e. that the respondent cannot be termed employee and that therefore she would not be entitled for gratuity however controlling authority failed to appreciate the said contention. 8. Mr. 7. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the order on short and singular ground i.e. that the respondent cannot be termed employee and that therefore she would not be entitled for gratuity however controlling authority failed to appreciate the said contention. 8. Mr. Upadhyay, learned advocate for the respondent workman opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner's contention is misconceived and there is no material to justify that the respondent was only part time employee and even if it is assumed that she was a part time employee then also the gratuity cannot be denied. 9. I have considered the contentions by learned advocate for the petitioner and the respondent. 9.1 An issue viz. whether part time employee can be termed workmen was referred to Division Bench. While deciding the reference Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered the issue related to part time employees in light of the provisions under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and while answering the respondent Hon'ble Division Bench held that there is nothing in law (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) to hold that person engaged on part time basis is not workman within the meaning of term definition under the Act. Likewise in the gratuity Act also there is no provision - not even the definition of the term "employee" under Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act - which excludes part time employee from the term and from the purview of the Act. 9.2 In view of the fact that there is no provision under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which excludes person engaged on part time basis from the definition of the term 'employee' and/or which would lead the Court to conclude that the person engaged on part time basis cannot be termed employee under the Act, the orders cannot be faulted. 9.3 Another relevant aspect in present case is that except bald allegation or claim by the petitioner that the respondent was engaged on part time basis, the petitioner had not placed any material before the controlling authority to prove that the respondent was engaged only on part time basis. 9.4 Therefore in absence of any evidence which would support and justify the petitioner's bald allegation that the respondent was engaged as part time employee, the petitioner's claim cannot be accepted. 10. 9.4 Therefore in absence of any evidence which would support and justify the petitioner's bald allegation that the respondent was engaged as part time employee, the petitioner's claim cannot be accepted. 10. Further, even according to the case of petitioner, in later part of her tenure the respondent was regularized in service and she was conferred status of full time casual labourer w.e.f. 1.10.2000 vide order dated 4.8.2003. 10.1 Thus, according to the petitioner's own statement the respondent was full time casual labourer at the time when she attained age of superannuation. This is another reason why the contention raised by the petitioner for denying gratuity to the respondent cannot be sustained. 11. In view of aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the controlling authority cannot be faulted. 11.1 The petitioner has failed to make out any ground to convince the Court that the decision by the controlling authority is erroneous and/or contrary to the provision of the Act. Therefore, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected. Consequently the petition is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim/interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. If the amount is already not disbursed/paid to the respondent then the amount deposited by the petitioner BSNL shall be disbursed/paid to the respondent alongwith accrued interest, however after verification of the evidence of the respondent's identity. With the aforesaid clarifications the petition is disposed of. Orders accordingly.