R.Banumathi,C.J.

These LPAs are preferred against the common order dated 26.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.2040/2001 and analogous cases confirming the order passed by the controlling authority and appellate authority, directing the payment of gratuity to 1st respondent(s), for the period when they served as casual workers on daily rated basis in M/s.MMTC (Mica Division).

2. The 1st respondent(s) in all cases were originally appointed as Daily Rated Workers and their services were regularized subsequently in MMTC (Mica Trading Corporation), a subsidiary of the appellant-Corporation. The 1st respondent(s) retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and all of them were paid gratuity with effect from the date of regularization till the date of their retirement. For proper appreciation of the facts and the contention of the parties, we may refer to the facts of LPA No.398/2012 (CWJC No.2040/2001) - the case of Sri Sajjan Kumar Bhudolia. The 1st respondent (Sri Sajjan Kumar Bhudolia) was appointed as Daily Rated Worker on 7.5.1973 and his service was regularized with effect from 13.5.1975 and he retired on 10.7.1993 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He was paid gratuity with effect from the date of regularization till the date of voluntary retirement, i.e. from 13.5.1975 to 10.7.1993. The details of all the 1st respondent/employees, the date of their appointment as Daily Rated Worker and their date of regular appointment reads as under:-

3. Sri Sajjan Kumar Bhudolia and other workers filed application before the 3rd respondent, i.e. the Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central) 1, Dhanbad, in Form I seeking payment of gratuity for the period during which they worked as daily rated workers. The appellant/employer filed written statement contending that the employees are not entitled to payment of gratuity for the period during which they worked as daily rated workers.

4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner-Controlling authority held that the 1st respondent is entitled to payment of gratuity for the period during which he worked as Daily Rated Worker. Pointing out that there was opening balance in CPF account of the employee and that the contribution made by the Corporation shows that the 1st respondent (Sri Sajjan Kumar Bhudolia) is in continuous service with the appellant-Corporation, the controlling authority held that when there is contribution made by the appellant-Corporation towards the CPF account of the 1st respondent (Sri Sajjan Kumar Bhudolia), the appellant-Corporation cannot deny the continuous service of the 1st respondent. On those findings, the controlling authority held that the 1st respondent(s) was in continuous service as per the provisions of the Act with effect from the date on which they were appointed as Daily Rated Workers and entitled to receive the gratuity payable from the date of their daily rated appointment.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the controlling authority, the appellant-Corporation preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority held that on