JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. Since it has been jointly submitted by the learned advocates for the parties that the issues involved in the aforesaid applications are common, and since all documents are already on record, by consent of the parties the aforesaid applications have been taken up for consideration together. The petitioner, who is common in all applications, has challenged the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”).

2. It is the petitioner’s contention that at all material point of time, the job of handling and transport of food grains and for supply of casual labourers was performed by the handling contractors. The respondent no.4 in each of the aforesaid applications were originally appointed as contract/casual labourer under the handling contractor under a two year contract period (hereinafter referred to as the “workers”). According to the petitioner, the workers are not its employees and had not been employed in terms of the FCI Staff Regulation, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Regulation”).

3. Notwithstanding the fact that at all mater