The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for Authorities to consider all contentions raised by the parties and the willingness of the contractors to deposit a sum to cover the differential amount without prejudice to their rights.

JUDGMENT

M.S.KARNIK, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners - Shri 38. wp 7926.19.doc Naidu, learned Counsel Shri Palshikar appearing for Respondent No.1 , Shri Shaligram appearing for Respondent - employees. Since these Petitions involve common issues, the same are disposed of by this common order.

3. The challenge in these Petitions is to the impugned orders passed by the Controlling Authority at page no. 90 of the Petitions and the Appellate Authority at page 130 of the compilation. Briefly stated it is the case of the Petitioners that they are contractors who were engaged by ONGC to provide security guards at the establishment of ONGC in Mumbai. Accordingly, the guards were supplied. The Petitioners were registered as private security agency in which capacity they provided security services to ONGC and other commercial establishments. On 30/04/2010, the contract of the Petitioners with ONGC came to an end due to eful of time. The Petitioners directed the employees to resume work at different sites. The employees did not resume work, but continued to work with the ONGC. The employees fled proceedings against ONGC in respect of their employment after termination of the contract with the Petitioners, with which we are not concerned in these Petitions. Suffice it to say that the employees severed their 38. wp 7926.19.doc relations with the Petitioners from 30/04/2010 and since then there is no relationship of employer and employee enlisting between the Petitioners and the Respondents - employees.

4. We are concerned with the claim of the gratuity made by the employees as against the Petitioners during the period when the employees worked with the Petitioners on the establishment of the ONGC.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that pursuant to the representations made by the employees, the gratuity due and payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the 'said Act' for short) was in fact paid to the employees. Shri Naidu relied upon the receipts which are at pages 41 to 61 indicating payment of gratuity to the employees and its receipt. Shri Naidu submits that having satisfied the claim of the employees under the said Act, nothing was due and payable by the Petitioners to the Respondent - employees. According to the Petitioners, the claim under the Act stood satisfied.

6. Shri Naidu made a grievance that despite satisfaction of the claims, the Respondent - employees approached the 38. wp 7926.19.doc Controlling Authority under the said Act by fling an application and claimed the gratuity amount stated in the application. It is the grievance of Shri Naidu that the said claim was made without pointing out that the amount of gratuity due and payable was already paid over to the Respondent - employees. According to Shri Naidu, assuming the employees have a claim for gratuity, then it could have been only for the differential amount after deducting the amount of gratuity that was already paid. In the submission of Shri Naidu, the Application therefore was not bonafide.

7. It is nelt contended by Shri Naidu, that the Petitioners are the Contractors supplying security guards to the various employers within the State of Maharashtra. According to him, as their operations are restricted to the State of Maharashtra, it is the Controlling Authority of the State Government under the said Act which will have jurisdiction and not the Controlling Authority of the Central Government. In short, it is his submission that as per Section 2(a) of the said Act, appropriate Government is the State Government and not the Central Government. It is his submission that the issue of jurisdiction, though raised specifically, is not at all considered by both the Authorities. 38. wp 7926.19.doc

8. Shri Shaligram on the other hand supported the impugned orders. According to him, the calculations are made on the basis of the provisions of the said Act.