JUDGMENT :

T. Raja, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order dated 28.06.2011 passed in W.P.No.27494 of 2009 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.)

1. The appellants/workmen have filed this writ appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27494 of 2009, dated 28.06.2011, by which, the order passed by the Appellate Authority/first respondent herein on 18.06.2009, holding that the workmen are entitled to claim gratuity only in respect of the years in which they have put in service, however, they cannot get gratuity in respect of the periods in which they are not employed, has been confirmed.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are stated below:-

The appellants were workmen of Dhanalakshmi Mills Limited, Tiruppur/third respondent herein. The said Mill consists of two units, namely, ‘A’ Mills, which is a spinning Unit and ‘B’ Mills, which is a weaving unit. Both units are situated at Tiruppur, within a radius of 500 metres. Sine the working of ‘B’ Mills weaving unit became uneconomic due to various reasons and that has lead to loss from 1982 till 1992-93, the Management of the Mills reached at the bi-partite talks with workmen during 1991-92, by which, it was decided to provide alternative employment to ‘B’ Mills workmen in ‘A’ Mills. But, it was not accepted and therefore, the third respondent management applied for closure of ‘B’ Mills by application dated 27.07.1992 under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short “ID Act”) with effect from 24.10.1992. It is also stated that the production of ‘B’ Mills came to a grinding halt since August 1992 due to disconnection of power supply for non-payment of electricity charges and accumulation of stocks of exportable cloths which could not be exported due to non-availability of export quota to the E.E.C. Countries. At the time of closure of ‘B’ Mills, there were 432 workers including staff and apprentices, and in ‘A’ Mills, there were 1143 workers including staff, apprentices, temporary workers, etc. But, the said application of the third respondent for closure of ‘B’ Mills was rejected by the Commissioner of Labour on 16.09.1992. However, the third respondent management preferred a review before the State Government, whereby, by G.O.Ms.No.250, Labour and Employment Department, dated 06.04.1993, the State Government referred the matter for adjudication of the issue stated below before the Special Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Madras:

“Whether the demand of Management of Dhanalakshmi Mills Limited, Tiruppur, to close down their ‘B’ Mill including all machineries, accessories and other installations in the weaving preparatory section in the premises of the ‘A’ Mills at Tiruppur, is justified and to what relief, the Management and the workmen would be entitled to?”

3. After the reference was made, the Special Industrial Tribunal, in its award dated 28.11.1994 passed in I.D.No.4 of 1993, answering the reference in favour of the management and permitting closure of ‘B’ Mills, directed to re-deploy all the workers of ‘B’ Mills in ‘A’ Mills, and also the workmen of preparatory section of ‘A’ Mills within four weeks, without prejudice to their service condition. This was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.No.21568 of 1994, whereby, learned Single Judge, by order dated 16.04.2001, dismissed the said writ petition and against which, when they preferred Writ Appeal No.1979 of 2001, learned Division Bench, by order dated 24.09.2008, dismissed the said writ appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. When the matter was taken up to BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction), it has passed adverse orders on 25.10.2004 against the management with a direction to consider a scheme of rehabilitation as proposed by the third respondent management. After all these developments, the management made a settlement under Section 18(1) of the