V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. Heard Mr.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC), Mr.S.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.D.S.Philip, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2. The challenge in the Writ Appeal by the TNCSC is to the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3377 of 2007, dated 25.07.2011, in which, the third respondent/writ petitioner called in question the order of the second respondent herein (Joint Commissioner of Labour), who is the competent appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, passed in P.G.A.2 of 2006, dated 10.08.2006, seeking to quash the same and to direct the appellant-TNCSC to pay the gratuity of Rs.31,154/- as computed by the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, together with interest. The learned single Judge, on going through the material facts as well as the legal position, came to the conclusion that the third respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to have the benefits of the said Act and thereby, allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the impugned order, dated 10.08.2006 and directed the appellant/TNCSC to implement the order of the first respondent/Controlling Authority, dated 29.11.2005 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. The case focussed by the third respondent/writ petitioner before the Writ Court is that he was initially employed as a casual labourer in the appellant/TNCSC, which is fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, in the year 1972 and was absorbed in the year 1998 as a regular employee; he retired from service on 30.6.2001, after putting in 29 years of total service. The appellant/TNCSC absorbed him as a regular employee, vide order dated 02.01.1998 passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein, the Government directed the appellant/TNCSC to make permanent such of those casual labourers who had completed ten years of service. Therefore, the third respondent/writ petitioner/employee claimed that he had put in required number of years of service to be regarded as a permanent employee and also eligible for calculating the gratuity. He retired on 30.06.2001, without payment of gratuity, on the ground that he had served only two years of permanent service. Since the claim was denied by the appellant/TNCSC, he moved the first respondent-Controlling Authority (Assistant Commissioner of Labour) with an application under Section 7(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act'). The said application was contested by the appellant/TNCSC on the ground that there was a delay in filing the application and also that he was appointed as permanent employee only in 1999 as a labourer and had not completed five years of service to claim gratuity, among other grounds. The Controlling Authority, after looking into the facts and appreciating the materials available before him, passed an order on 29.11.2005 holding that the writ petitioner was already functioning as a casual labourer even prior to 1999 and he was made permanent in the year 1998 and continued in employment thereafter and as the writ petitioner was functioning for more than ten years prior to regular appointment/permanent appointment, he was entitled to get gratuity amount as he was having total service of 12 years and accordingly, the Controlling Authority calculated the gratuity payable to him at Rs.31,154/- on the ground that his daily wage was Rs.150/- per day and he had served for more than 12 years. Aggrieved by the said order of the Controlling Authority, the appellant/TNCSC filed appeal before the second respondent/competent appellate authority (Joint Commissioner of Labour) in P.G.A.2/2006, which was allowed by order dated 10.08.2006, against which, the Writ Petition was preferred by the employee before the learned single Judge.

4. It was claimed before the learned single Judge that the third responde