Antony Dominic, J.

The question to be answered in these cases is whether the Kerala Cashew Workers Apex Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. (CAPEX, for short) is liable to pay gratuity due under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to its employees for the period of their service, prior to the appointed day under the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), when they were employed by the owners of the factories concerned. C. R.

2. In exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Act, various cashew factories were acquired by the Government, including that of the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1443/2014 and as a result, these factories were vested in the Government under Section 3(3) of the Act. Thereafter, a direction under Section 8(l)(b) of the Act was made on 27.07.1984 and the factory of the appellant was vested in the CAPEX. In course of time, about 284 workers of the factory attained the age of superannuation and retired from the services of CAPEX. The retired workers laid claims against CAPEX for payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. CAPEX resisted the claims contending that its liability a for payment of gratuity is only for the period of service subsequent to the appointed date under the Act and that liability, if any, for the period of service prior to the appointed day, is that of the owner or the occupier of the factory from whom the factory was acquired by the Government in exercise of its powers under the Act. This contention was accepted by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in writ Petition No.2894/2013. Realising that on the strength of the aforesaid order, recovery proceedings are likely to be initiated against them, the owner from whom the factory was acquired who was not a party to the writ petition obtained leave of this court and filed writ appeal No.1443/2014.

3. Writ petition Nos.22719, 22720,22721, 22722, 22723,23280 of 2014 are also c filed by the appellant in writ appeal No.1443/2014, challenging similar orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. Similarly placed employer is the petitioner in writ petition No.25359 and 25360 of 2014. All the remaining writ petitions were filed by CAPEX where they are challenging the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority wherein d it has been held that in respect of the workman whose services were transferred to the CAPEX, the liability to pay gratuity for the entire period of service rendered (including the period prior to the appointed day) is that of CAPEX, from whose services the employees concerned have retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the employers, the workers, the CAPEX and the learned Government Pleader.

5. Essentially, the question to be resolved is as to who has the liability to pay gratuity to the workers for the services rendered by them for the period prior to the 'appointed day' under the Act in the factories that were acquired. While I according to the owners and the workers, the liability is that of CAPEX in which the factories were vested under Section 8(l)(b) of the Act, the CAPEX contends that its liability is confined to the period of service from the appointed day under the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant in Writ appeal No.1443/2014, and the counsel for the workmen, invited our attention to the various provisions of the Act, judgment of this Court in O.P.No.6996/1992 and connected cases which was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.884/1992 and connected cases, the judgment in Pattathuvila K. Damodharan v. M. Kasimkunju, 1993 (2) LLJ 1211 : 1992 ICO 3470 confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1376/1992 and connected cases and against which leave was declined by the Apex Court by its order dated 28.01.1994 in SLP ©No.13289/1993. Counsel also invited our attention to the comparable provisions of th