JUDGMENT:

1. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-III for the petitioners and Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The respondents 2 and 3 are the authorities who have passed the orders under challenge.

2. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent herein was initially appointed as Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) Man Mazdoor in the year 1972. He worked up to June, 1984 and thereafter his services were terminated against which he approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.51 of 1991 in which the award dated 25.09.1996 was passed directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the first respondent into duty within two months. Challenging the said award, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition No.13371 of 1997 which was dismissed on 14.07.2003. Thereafter, the first respondent was reinstated into duty. Again his services were terminated on 05.01.2005. Challenging the said action, the 1st respondent filed Writ Petition No.1498 of 2005 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 31.03.2010 directing the petitioners herein to consider him for regularization. Alleging disobedience of the order dated 31.03.2010, the 1st respondent filed C.C.No.1373 of 2011 in which the petitioners have filed their response. The first respondent retired on 31.01.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. After his retirement, the first respondent filed P.G.No.1 of 2015 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act 1972”) for payment of gratuity of Rs.2,05,962/- in which the petitioners filed their written statement inter alia stating that the 1st respondent was not entitled for payment of any gratuity. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Srikakulam-3rd respondent passed the award dated 20.08.2017 directing the first petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,962/- to the 1st respondent together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of retirement. The award was challenged by the petitioners in P.G.F.A.No.1 of 2019 which was dismissed by the appellate authority under the Act, 1972 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (FAC), Srikakulam-2nd respondent, vide order dated 01.06.2020.

4. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed for the following reliefs:

“It is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and call for the record relating to P.G.No.01 of 2015 dated 28.03.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent and further confirmed in PGFA No.1 of 2019 dated 01.06.2020 by the 2nd respondent and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to the provisions payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Irrigation Department is not an establishment under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972. He further submits that the 1st respondent hereinbeing Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) is not an employee under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972. Consequently the first respondent is not entitled to the payment of any gratuity under the Act, 1972. The orders under challenge deserve to be quashed. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Somdutt Sharma, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 829 .

6. Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the Irrigation Department is an “establishment” within the meaning of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, 1972. He further submits that the first respondent is an “employee” within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972. Consequently, the 1st respondent is entitled for payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act, 1972. There is no illegality in the orders impugned in the writ petition. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of State of Punjab vs. Labour Court Jullunder and others, AIR 1