( 1 ) THE dispute in the present case falls in a narrow compass. The question before the Court is as to whether the appropriate government in relation to the petitioner is the Central Government or the State government for the purposes of the PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972. Section 2 (a) of the Act defines the expression "appropriate Government" thus :

" (A) "appropriate Government" means,- (i) in relation to an establishment - (a) belonging to, or under the control of, the Central government, (b) having branches in more than one State, (c) of a factory belonging to, or under the control of, the Central government, (d) of a major port, mine, oilfield or railway company, the central Government, (ii) in any other case, the State Government. "the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have held that the applications for payment of gratuity that were filed by the first respondent and 272 other workmen were maintainable before the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government since it is the State Government which is the appropriate Government.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products. In December, 2000, the petitioner acquired over 40% of the equity share capital of May and Baker India Limited. In January, 2001 a further 20% came to be acquired. The first respondent and 272 other workmen whose names are listed in Annexure-A to the petition accepted voluntary retirement from service under a scheme which was floated by the management under the approval of the Income Tax Department. Nearly five years thereafter, these employees filed applications before the State Controlling Authority claiming gratuity for the period after their actual severance until the date on which they would have attained the normal retirement age of 60 years.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed a preliminary objection to the applications in january, 2000 raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government. Evidence was adduced by the management and on behalf of the workmen. The Controlling Authority by an order dated 3rd july, 2001 held that the appropriate Government was the State Government and that it would accordingly have jurisdiction. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority on 31st October, 2001.

( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that detailed and voluminous evidence in the form of documentary material and oral evidence was led before the Controlling Authority to establish that the Company had branch offices in more than one State. The petitioner had taken over the business of the erstwhile May and Baker India Ltd. and it was submitted that the Company has a large network of branches spread all over India. Employees are transferred from one place to another as a condition of service and separate settlements were entered into with the Unions to govern the employees in the Head Office and depots on the one hand and the Technical representatives on the other. The evidence, it was submitted, established the relationship between the factory in the state of Maharashtra and the branches including sales offices outside the State. In these circumstances, it was submitted that both the authorities had manifestly erred in holding that the appropriate Government was the State Government. On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made an attempt to sustain the finding which has been arrived at by the authorities below by urging that the Depots in the present case are only places where goods are stored and they cannot be classified as branches.

( 5 ) IN considering the rival submissions which have been urged before the court, it would be necessary to advert first and foremost to the documentary material that came to be exhibited in the course of the evidence led by the management. The management placed on