Abdul Gafoor, J.

A Co-Operative society is the appellant, Only, the granite quarry workers are the members of the Society. The society gets, on lease, quarries for quarrying, Willing members are employed for quarrying work. The remuneration is paid for the work done by the members. These are the admitted position.

2. The bye-law of the Society provides for payment of gratuity to the worker who retires. The provision in the bye-law is that for the purpose of computing gratuity, one should have worked for 240 days in an year. It will be taken as complete year for computation of gratuity. The first respondent, a member of the appellant-society, retired. He was paid gratuity in terms of the bye-law as aforesaid.

3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of gratuity he moved the Controlling officer appointed under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short "the Act") for computation of the gratuity payable to him by the appellant. The Controlling Officer found that, as the workman, first respondent herein, did have 21 years of continuous service, he shall be paid Rs.35, 941.50. The formula applied was the last drawn wages of Rs.114.10 x 15 (half monthly wages) x 21 (number of years of service) = Rs. 35,941,50 and directed payment of Rs.11,980/- deducting the amount of Rs.23,961/-, already paid by the appellant.

4. The Appellate Authority, as per Ext.P4 order, upheld Ext.P2 when it was appealed against by the appellant. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4, the appellant approached this court with O.P.No.172820/99. The learned single Judge dismissed the original petition. Therefore, this appeal.

5. It is contended by the appellant before us that gratuity is payable in terms of the provisions contained in the bye-laws. As already mentioned above, only the period during which the incumbent had worked for 240 days in an year alone would be counted for calculating the period of continuous service. In other words, in any particular year, if the incumbent had not worked for 240 days, that year will be deducted from out of the total service. Following that principle, an amount of Rs.23961/- has been arrived at by the appellant towards the gratuity payable to the first respondent. Relying on the decision reported in Daman Singh v. State of Punjab {1985 SC 973} and E.S.I. Corporation v. Vattiyoorkavu H.W.Co-operative Society {1997(1) KLT 342}, it is submitted that, as the first respondent had become a member of the society, he lost his character as an individual worker while performing the work in the quarry leased out to the appellant. He will be governed only by the provisions in the bye-law and not by any other law so far as the inter se relationship between the society and its members is concerned. So, the provisions of the Act will not be applicable for payment of gratuity to the first respondent.

6. Of course, in the first among the two decisions, it has been held that a member loses it individual identity qua the society when he becomes member. That was a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in respect of a societal dispute as to the amalgamation of the society. That does not have any bearing on the liability of the society towards the members or regarding the payment to the member concerned for the work performed by him for the society.

7. The latter is in respect of the ESI contribution payable by a co-operative society of weavers. There, society had been supplying yarn to each of its members, who will convert the yarn using the looms installed at their residence. What was being paid by the society is the difference in the price of yarn and the finished products. There was no factory owned by the society. There was no common workshop. The work places were the individual houses of the members. The conversion charges will not attract the definition of payment of contribution under the Employee's State insurance Act. So, that decision also does not have any application to the fact frame of this issue.

8. Counsel also places reliance on another de