JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. As a common question of law arises for consideration in these petitions in a, by and large, identical fact-situation, all these petitions are being decided together. Writ Petition No.2443 of 2022 is considered as the lead petition.

3. Background facts can be stated in brief as under:

(a) Respondent No.1 – ONGC is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No.1 is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed to have worked on the premises of respondent No.1 - ONGC variously from the period 1988 to 1995. The petitioners were engaged through various contractors, the last of whom was M/s. Noble Enterprises, respondent No.2. ONGC was thus the “principal employer” of the petitioners within the meaning of Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 (“the Contract Labour Act, 1970”). Eventually after having worked for years, ranging between 15 to 25, the petitioners employment came to an end in June, 2006 pursuant to the petitioners furnishing an undertaking under Goodwill Package Scheme floated by ONGC.

(b) The petitioners claim as the petitioners and other workmens’ services were being utilized by ONGC for performing work of a permanent and perennial nature, through the Trade Unions dispute was raised to treat the petitioners and other workmen as regular and permanent workers of ONGC, in writ petitions before this Court. An industrial reference was also subjudice before the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal.

(c) On 8th June, 2006 ONGC floated a Goodwill Package Scheme, purportedly to achieve industrial peace and harmony, minimize litigation and jobless contract labour and address the implications of closure, shifting, re-organization and restructuring of establishments of ONGC. Pursuant thereto several Unions of contract workers executed a Memo of Understanding (MoU) with ONGC. One of the principal terms of the Goodwill Package Scheme was that in consideration of payment of lump-sum compensation the contract workers would withdraw from the pending litigation and cease to be engaged on the premises of ONGC. Accordingly, on 13th June, 2006, the petitioners signed an, “affidavit-cum-declaration” to avail the benefits under the said scheme and consequently withdrew from the industrial reference.

(d) The petitioners claim, they were paid the amount in accordance with the terms of Goodwill Package Scheme. However, gratuity payable to them was not paid. Thus, the union dispatched ‘I’ Forms in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 framed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“the Gratuity Act”) to respondent Nos.1 and 2. No action in conformity with the obligations of the employers was taken by the respondents. Therefore the union submitted, ‘N’ Forms before the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act.

(e) The Controlling Authority issued notices to ONGC and respondent No.2. After evaluating the material and the evidence and considering submissions canvassed, including on the objection as to the maintainability of the claim for gratuity against ONGC – the principal employer, by an order dated 17th July, 2017, the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act directed the ONGC to make payment of gratuity to the petitioners. Liberty was granted to ONGC to recover the amount so paid from respondent No.2 contractor and its predecessors. The Controlling Authority, inter alia, held that the contract workers were entitled to claim gratuity from the ONGC, who was, at all material times, their principal employer and the fact that they had accepted the compensation under the Goodwill Package Scheme did not preclude them from claiming the gratuity under the Gratuity Act.

(f) Being aggrieved, ONGC preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Gratuity Act. By the im