JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---These 7 writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order, as they raise the same question of law and the facts are also similar, if not identical.

2. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is a Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924. The First respondent is the Appellate Authority set up by the Central Government to hear appeals under section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter, for short, called "the Act") , who has passed the impugned order. The other respondents are the workmen of the petitioners, who are hereinafter referred to as "the workmen".

3. The workmen filed applications under section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, claiming different amounts of gratuity due to them under the provisions of the Act. These applications came to be allowed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner Board appealed against the said orders of the Controlling Authority to the Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeals. The petitioners are in this Court to impugn the orders of the Appellate Authority.

4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the facts allege

Click Here to Read the rest of this document