The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to railway employees and the interpretation of the term 'employee' under the Act, specifically in the context of the writ petitioner's service as a casual laborer and temporary Lascar.

Balakrishna Eradi, C.J.

1. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in OP. No. 4543 of 1976 -- The Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Quilon. The Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Madras and the Union of India represented by its General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras -- Have preferred this appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court allowing O.P. No. 4543 of 1976 filed by the respondent herein and holding that the respondent is an employee entitled to the benefits of the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter called the Act) and directing that on an application being filed by him under R.7 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules for payment of such gratuity, necessary action should be taken by the respondents in the Original Petition (appellants herein) to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The parties will hereafter be referred to on the basis of their ranking and array in the Original Petition.

2. The writ petitioner was admittedly working as a casual labourer under the Southern Railway Administration during the period from 29th April 1954 till 16th June 1975. Consequent on which his having been found suitable for absorption in regular service after screening, the writ petitioner was appointed as temporary Lascar as per the order Ext. R1, dated 17th June 1975 passed by the Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Quilon 1st respondent. , The writ petitioner assumed charge as temporary Lascar on the same date. He retired from service on superannuation on 31st May 1976, after having served only for a short period of 1 year, 6 months and 15 days as temporary Lascar. On a representation having been made by the writ petitioner to the Railway Administration for payment of gratuity, he was informed that he was not eligible to receive such payment in view of the provision contained in R.104 of Chap.1 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950 insisting on a minimum of three years' service as a condition prerequisite for eligibility of gratuity in respect of temporary railway servants. Aggrieved by the said decision taken by the Railway Administration the writ petitioner came up to this Court by filing the Original Petition (O.P. No. 4543 of 1976) praying for the Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay 10 the petitioner 11 months' salary or wages by way of gratuity under S.4 of the Act. The said prayer was resisted by the respondents by putting forward three grounds of objection before the learned single Judge. Firstly, it was urged that the writ petitioner was not an "employee" entitled to the benefit of the Act, since he did not have continuous service for 5 years as specified under S.4 of the said enactment. The second point put forward by the respondent was that the writ petitioner was debarred from claiming any gratuity by reason of the stipulation contained in Para.6 of the appointment order Ext. R1, which was in the following terms: "Your appointment carries no claim to gratuity or to any absentee allowances beyond those admissible to temporary employees under the rules in force from time to time". Lastly, it was contended by the respondent that the Act has no application at all to personnel employed under the Railway Administration. The learned single Judge rejected all the aforesaid contentions put forward by the respondents and held that the writ petitioner is an employee entitled to payment of gratuity under S.4 of the Act. However, under R.7 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, an employee who claims gratuity under the Act has to apply to the employer in Form I and since the said requirement had not been complied with by the writ petitioner, the learned single Judge permitted the writ petitioner to file an application under the said Rule within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and directed that on such application being filed, nec