The Payment of Gratuity Act mandates that casual workers are entitled to gratuity if they meet continuous service criteria, regardless of prior casual employment terms.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the respondent no.2/Appellate Authority in Appeal No.PG.37/2023-E arising out of Case No.PG/31/2021/ALCR ( Sri Dhruba Majumdar Vs. The Chairman, UCO Bank ).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in or about January, 1982, the respondent 3 was working as a temporary peon, on daily wages basis, with the petitioner and was posted at Durgapur Main Branch and continued to work as a casual peon till 28.02.2017.

3. In view of a settlement between the management of the petitioner and its various employees' Union, namely All India UCO Bank Employees' Federation, United Commercial Bank Employees' Association and All India UCO Bank Staffs' Federation (hereinafter called "the said Workmen Unions") a settlement had been arrived at on 12th October, 1989, whereby it was, inter alia, decided that casual worker of the subordinate cadre, subject to their entitlement to being absorbed in terms of the said settlement, may apply to the competent authority in the prescribed format and subject to their meeting necessary eligibility criteria as mentioned in the Circular issued by the petitioner dated 19.10.1989 and subject to available vacancy read with the Circular dated 31st March, 1990, they would be absorbed/regularized. By virtue of the said settlement, the wages of the casual workers had also been revised as recorded therein.

4. Accordingly, upon receiving necessary applications a panel of daily wagers/casual workers was prepared at the instance of the petitioner, which included the name of the respondent No. 3, then working as a casual worker at Durgapur Main Branch office of the petitioner.

5. In or about December, 2003, the respondent No. 3 was appointed in the service of the petitioner, in the subordinate cadre, on terms and conditions as recorded, in his Letter of Appointment No. RO/KOL/PAD/COM/111/2003-04 dated 31.12.2003 as Peon-cum-Farash w.e.f. 17.06.2003.

6. The respondent No. 3 retired from service of the petitioner on attaining superannuation on 28.02.2017 and all his terminal benefits have duly been paid by the petitioner.

7. The petitioner states that the respondent no.3 then filed an application before the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commission (Central at Ranipur, Durgapur), claiming gratuity from the year 1982, till the date of his retirement on 28.02.2017, treating him as in-service from 21.01.1982 to 28.02.2017 total 35 (Thirty five) years of service. The petitioner appeared before the Controlling Authority and denied the claim of the respondent no.3, on the ground that in the said Bipartite Settlement dated 12th October, 1989 which culminated in issuing the Circulars 19.10.1989 and 31.03.1990 between the management and workmen Union it was, inter alia, agreed as follows:-

“6. Pending Disputes:

Any person eligible for absorption under this settlement shall withdraw any case pending before any Conciliation Officer, Labour Court, Tribunal or any other court of law and his claim, if any, shall be deemed to have been settled in terms of this settlement. Upon any person applying for absorption in terms of this settlement shall be deemed to have accepted the benefits under this settlement in full satisfaction in respect of any pending dispute or claim. He shall not be eligible for any benefits beyond what is stipulated in this settlement."

8. The Controlling Authority by an order dated 26th April, 202