The settlement award remained in operation until lawfully replaced, and the Municipality's termination of the award did not affect the employees' entitlement to gratuity.

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. All the captioned petitions are in group and they are cognate. The first 15 petitions as captioned, are filed by the respective employees wherein they pray for a direction to enforce Recovery Certificates issued by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

1.1 The other captioned petitions which are virtually cross petitions, are filed by the Municipality in which it has challenged the orders passed by the Controlling Authority in their respective cases, ordering payment of the gratuity to them. That is how all the aforesaid petitions interact and forms a group. For instance, corresponding to the first captioned Special Civil Application No. 3252 of 2014 filed by the petitioner-employee, the petition filed by the Municipality is Special Civil Application No. 8856 of 2014.

2. Since all the petitions involve similar facts and identical issues, they were heard together and are being considered simultaneously by this common judgment.

3. The relevant details in respect of each of the petitions by the employees, the corresponding petitions by the Municipality, the date of order by the Controlling Authority, date of Recovery Certificate, amount of gratuity, etc. are listed in the tabular form below.

3.1 So as not to unnecessarily burden the judgment, Special Civil Application No. 3252 of 2014 is treated as representative for the purpose of stating relevant facts. In the said petition filed on 28th February, 2014, the petition-employee has prayed for direction to recover amount of Rs. 01,61,404/- under Recovery Certificate dated 11th October, 2011 issued by the Controlling Authority pursuant to its order dated 20th June, 2011 in Gratuity Application No. 07 of 2011. The petitioner was working as Driver with the respondent-Municipality from 08th April, 1985 and he stood retired with effect from 31st July, 2009. The respondent-Municipality paid a sum of Rs. 01,21,452/- on 14th October, 2010 to the petitioner. Thereby the Controlling Authority directed the employer-Nadiad Municipality to pay the differential amount of gratuity with interest at 10% from 15th October, 2010. It further directed to pay 10% interest from 01st August, 2009 to 14th October, 2010 on the total amount of admissible gratuity Rs. 02,42,904/-.

3.2 It appears that a settlement award dated 17th February, 1975 was arrived at between the Municipality and its employees and in terms of the settlement, an award was pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal on 18th February, 1975. As per the said award, the employees of the Municipality are to be paid the gratuity equivalent to the amount of one month's salary for each completed years of service subject to 25 months' salary. It further appears that thereafter the employees again raised demands which were referred to, to the Tribunal being Reference (IT) No. 200 of 1977. In that Reference also, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 09th March, 1978 and on that basis the Industrial Tribunal passed award on 13th March, 1978. As per the said award, the respondent-Municipality agreed to adopt pay-scales as per the Desai Pay Commission.

3.3 The petitioner-employees approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by filing Gratuity Application No. 07 of 2001 and other respective Applications. The petitioners claimed the amount of gratuity as per the aforesaid settlement award and prayed for paying differential amount as well as interest on delayed payment. The Controlling Authority allowed those Applications. The Municipality did not file any Appeal before the Appellate Authority against the orders of Controlling Authority. The Recovery Certificate in question came to be issued by the Controlling Authority. The petitioner had to make a representation to the Collector on 19th November, 2011 since the recovery was not being effected. It appears that the Collector addressed a letter dated 29th November, 2011 asking the petitioner to approach respondent