JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing/setting aside the order dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ), Dhanbad (respondent No.1), who is an Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby and whereunder a direction was issued upon the petitioner to pay the Gratuity to the respondent No.3.

2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner, M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘HEC’) is a company registered under Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is a Government of India Undertaking. The petitioner-HEC in order to get its work done, engages different contractors through various Manpower Samities. One such Samiti is the present one operated by the Respondent No.4. The contractors of the said Samiti keep on changing from time to time after holding internal elections, but the name and style of the Samiti remains the same. The respondent No.3, (Pandu Topno) was a workman of one of such Samities run by respondent No.4. The respondent No.3 joined the services as Fitter under respondent No.4 and after attaining the age of 60 years, he superannuated on 31.03.2012. Thereafter, he approached the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 for payment of gratuity, but no heed was paid. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an application on 30.04.2013 before the Controlling Authority in Form-N under Rule 10 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 for a direction upon the petitioner-HEC and respondent No.4 for determination of amount payable towards gratuity and making payment thereof to him and vide order dated 22.09.2017, the Controlling Authority rejected the claim of the respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an Appeal before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, and vide order dated 11.07.2019, Appeal of the respondent No.3 was allowed and a direction was issued upon the petitioner-HEC to pay the Gratuity to the respondent No.3 along with 10 % interest from 01.04.2012 till date of payment. Aggrieved by the impugned appellate order, the petitioner-HEC has been constrained to knock the door of this Court, challenging the appellate order dated 11.07.2019.

3. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-HEC assailed the impugned order on the ground that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent no. 3 as he was appointed/engaged by the Contractor i.e. respondent No.4 for carrying out the work of Petitioner-HEC and as such, the petitioner is not responsible for payment of gratuity. He further submitted that Appellate Authority also failed to consider the evidences produced by respondent No.3 wherein, he had stated that he was appointed on 01.11.1983 in HMBP Unit under M/s Ghasis Oraon, Contractor and also worked under different contractors in the establishment of petitioner-HEC, but he was not paid his Gratuity by his employers i.e. Contractors and as such, employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and Respondent no. 3 does not exist. He further submitted that since the respondent No. 3 was appointed by the Contractor on contractual basis and there was no control and supervision of the petitioner-HEC over the respondent No.3-workman, the petitioner-HEC cannot be held liable to pay the gratuity amount to the workman appointed by the Contractor/s. Learned counsel further submitted that the workman did not produce any chit of paper /document in support of his claim or even appointment letter issued by the petitioner-HEC Management. Learned counsel places a Circular issued by Addl. Central P.F. Commissioner-II (CAIU), wherein it is stipulated that a large number of employees were being hired on Contract Basis by various Principal Employers including Government Departments, PSUs etc. for their business activities. Those contract employees are not being provided Social Security benefits unde