The liability for gratuity of workmen superannuating after the appointed day of May 1, 1972, falls entirely on the Central Government or the Government Company, irrespective of the earlier period of service rendered to previous owners.

S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J.–Whether the Central Government or the Government Company (as the case may be) is liable for the whole of the claim of gratuity of a workman superannuating after the appointed day of 1st May, 1972, irrespective of the earlier period of service rendered to the previous owner, in view of section 17 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 is the significant question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of the earlier Division Bench JUDGMENT : on this point in M/s Coal Fields Limited v. Mrs. Prabhawati Rairkar and others (CWJC No. 66 of 1978 (R), decided on March 10, 1983.

2. The facts are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass. Sital Chandra Pathak, respondent No.1, was appointed as a Mining Sirdar way back on the 24th of June, 1946 in Katras Chaitudih Colliery then owned by Messrs Barakar Coal Company Limited. He served the said colliery in that capacity and thereafter was promoted as an Overman with effect from the 20th of October, 1950. The services of respondent No. 1 were terminated by Messrs Barakar Coal Company Limited with effect from the 12th of March, 1968. Respondent No.1 along with others raised an industrial dispute and the Tribunal, by its award dated the 20th of January, 1976, set aside the termination of services and held that the workman concerned shall be deemed to have continued in service. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 joined the Murlidhar Colliery on the 24th of February, l969 and after the nationalisation thereof his services were taken over by the petitioner company, namely. Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner company').

3. Respondent No. 1 reached the age of superannuation on 22nd of September, 1981 and the petitioner company sought to pay him the gratuity only for the period from the 24th of February, 1969 till the date of his superannuation on the 22nd September, 1981, and tendered a sum of Rs. 7,499.70. Dissatisfied with the amount, respondent No. 1 filed a petition for his claim of gratuity for the entire period from the 24th of February, 1946 till the date of his superannuation before the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, respondent No.2. The latter allowed the total claim after deducting the admitted payment of gratuity to the respondent. The petitioner company appealed to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) cum-Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The said Authority however, upheld the claim of the respondent for the total period of service of thirty-six years with marginal arithmetical modifications. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner company has preferred this petition primarily on the ground that it was not liable for the claim of gratuity for the period of service prior to the appointed day of the 1st of May, 1972.

4. This case originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench, and basic reliance was sought to be placed on behalf of the petitioner on the earlier decision in M/s Central Coalfields Limited v. Mrs. Prabhawati Rairkar and others (supra). Noticing the significance of the question involved and entertaining some doubt about the correctness of earlier view, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative adjudication.

5. As would be evident hereinafter, the whole debate herein has centred around sections 9 and 17 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). It is, therefore, apt to read the relevant parts thereof at the very outset :–

"9. (1) Every liability of the owner, agent, manager or managing contractor of a coking coal mine or coke oven plant, in relation to any period prior to the appointed day, shall be the liability of such owner, agent, manager or managing contractor, as the case may be, and shall be enforceable against him and not against the Central Gove