K.M. Thaker, J.—Heard Mr. K. M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. J.M. Patel, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Ms. Vinita Vinayak and Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned Advocates for the respondents. Having regard to the submissions, Rule.

1.1 In view of the fact that in all the petitions, a common order has been impugned which relates to controversy concerning gratuity, Rule is made returnable forthwith and at the request and with the consent of all concerned, the petitions are taken upon for final hearing. Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa and Ms. Vinita Vinayak, learned Advocates for the respondents have waived service of notice of Rule. Since the original order of adjudicating authority is a common order for all applications and as all the petitions raise common issues, they all are decided by this common judgment and order.

1.2 In the captioned group of petitions, the petitioners have challenged a common order dated 29th October, 2007, in Gratuity Applications No. 20 of 2007 to 68 of 2007, passed by the Controlling Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) whereby the Controlling Authority has directed the pe