( 1 ) ). These two petitions have been filed by the same petitioner (who is the employer) against the orders made under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 In Special Civil Application No. 3098 of 1979 respondent No. 1 is the workman. In Special Civil Application No. 965 of 1980 the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the workmen. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing Beedis and in selling Beedis and loose tea. The workmen were manufacturing or rolling out Beedis for the petitioner They left his service. Thereafter they applied for payment of gratuity. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 ordered the payment of gratuity to these workmen in terms of the orders which he made.

( 2 ) THE petitioner appealed against those orders to the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the workmen were not employees within the meaning of the definition of that expression given in the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 That contention was negatived by the Appellate Authority. However the Appellate Authority on facts found that the cases deserved to be remanded to the Controlling Authority. He therefore mad