Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. This application came to be opposed, firstly, on the ground that the employee-respondent No. 1 at the time ofhis superannuation, was drawing more wages than Rs. 1,600/- and as such he was not entitled to any benefits under the payment of gratuity Act. It was also suggested by the employers that it was not a commercial establ ishment and, therefore, it was not liable to make any payment of gratuity. It claimed that it was governed by the Non- agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code Rules, 1984 and in that view of Rule 116-D thereof, the employees of such colleges were not entitled to be paid any gratuity. In the view of this, the dismissal of the application was prayed.