Point of Law : Section 2(e) of the Act reads as “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are expressed or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of the factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.

ORDER :

1. The above petitions are filed seeking quashing of the orders of the Controlling Authority/Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short) awarding gratuity amount claimed by respondent No. 1 with interest at 10% per annum.

The particulars of the impugned orders are as follows:

S. No. Writ Petition Date of order Amount awarded

Controlling Authority Appellate Authority

1. 46017/2017 16.12.2014 06.01.2016 Rs. 85,758/-

2. 46019/2017 15.12.2014 06.01.2016 Rs. 84,116/-

3. 46105/2017 15.12.2014 -- Rs. 1,24,615/-

4. 46106/2017 15.12.2014 -- Rs. 1,59,547/-

5. 46107/2017 17.12.2014 -- Rs. 1,81,220/-

6. 46108/2017 16.12.2014 06.01.2016 Rs. 47,114/-

2. The petitioners are the Government bodies being part of the Department of Panchayat Raj. Respondent No. 1 in the above cases were initially employed as daily wage workers. The Government by its order regularized the services of respondent No. 1 with certain cut off dates. Respondent No. 1 retired from the services on receiving their pension amounts and gratuity.

3. After such retirement, they submitted the applications before the Controlling Authority claiming that they were entitled to gratuity from the date of their induction as daily wage workers. The particulars of date of appointment as daily wage workers, date of their regularization, date of retirement, date of applications and the amount received by respondent No. 1 are set out in the table below:

S. No. R1 in Writ Petition Date of appointment as daily wage worker as claimed by R1 Date of regularization of service Date of retirement Date of application filed by R1 Amount in Rs. received by R1

1. 46017/2017 10.03.1976 01.01.1990 31.10.2007 17.12.2013 58,500/-

2. 46019/2017 1974 01.01.1990 31.08.2007 03.12.2013 56,875/-

3. 46105/2017 03.08.1979 01.01.1990 30.06.2012 02.12.2013 1,80,000/-

4. 46106/2017 10.02.1975 01.01.1990 30.06.2011 17.12.2013 80,088/-

5. 46107/2017 01.02.1976 01.01.1990 30.06.2013 08.05.2014 1,92,700/-

6. 46108/2017 03.08.1979 01.01.1990 30.06.2004 03.12.2013 23,963/-

4. The petitioners opposed the applications of respondent No. 1 on the ground that they were Government employees and not employees under Section 2(e) of the Act, therefore the Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain such claims. In some of the cases, the petitioners preferred the appeals before the Appellate Authority. They also came to be dismissed. Hence the above petitions.

5. The main ground of challenge is that respondent No. 1 were not the employees within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, therefore the petitions were not maintainable. It is contended that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

6. The petitions are opposed on two grounds. One is that against the orders of the Controlling Authority, statutory appeal as provided under Section 7 of the Act lies. Therefore the petitions are not maintainable. Second contention is that respondent No. 1 were employees within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act for the period commencing from their induction as daily wage workers till their regularization. Therefore the said period should have been taken into consideration as the qualifying period of service for the purpose of computing gratuity.

7. The petitioners admit that respondent No. 1 were the employees. The petitioners’ witness in his cross-examination admitted that respondent No. 1 joined the services of the petitioners as daily wage workers on the dates mentioned in the table above and they worked as such since their regularization on the dates mentioned against their names in the table.

8. The only contention of the petitioners is that Section 2(e) of the Act excludes the Government employees, therefore respondent No. 1 could not have invoked Section 7 of the Act. Similarly, the other contention is that since respondent No. 1 were not covered under the Act, respondent Nos.2 and 3 had no