Seasonal workmen with over 20 years of service are entitled to gratuity at 15 days' wages per year, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act and relevant circulars.

ORDER :

(P. DHANABAL, J. )

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the 1st respondent in A.G.A. Nos.163 to 168 of 2011 dated 03.12.2012 and to quash the same.

2. According to the Writ petitioner, the petitioner is a Cooperative Sugar Mill established in the year 1964 and had 281 permanent workmen and 225 seasonal workmen. The respondents workmen were engaged as seasonal workmen. While so, the respondents workmen filed an application for payment of gratuity before the 2nd respondent in PG Case Nos.2 to 7 of 2008 claiming gratuity @ 15 days' wages for each year of service rendered by them. The workmen were employed in the Writ Petitioner's Seasonal Establishment and therefore, they are entitled for gratuity @ 7 days' wages for each season. But the 2nd respondent passed a common order dated 18.08.2010 by holding that the workmen were entitled to gratuity @ 15 days' wages for each year of service and computed the amount. Challenging the said order, the Writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent through an order dated 03.12.20212. Now the said order is under challenge through the present Writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management would submit that the respondents 3 to 8 are seasonal workmen and they were only engaged as seasonal workmen and they were not employed continuously for 240 days per year. Therefore, they are only entitled to gratuity @ 7 days wages for the seasonal service. But the respondents 1 and 2 failed to consider that the respondents 3 to 8 were engaged only as seasonal workmen and ordered to pay the gratuity amount @ 15 days' wages for each year of service. As per Sub-Section 3 of Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the respondents 3 to 8 are only entitled to the gratuity @ 7 days wages for each season. But the respondents 1 and 2 had erroneously passed an order that the respondents workmen are entitled to the gratuity @ 15 days' wages for each year of service. Therefore, the order psased by the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3, 4 and 6 to 8 would submit that the respondents 3, 4 and 6 to 8 were working under the petitioner management and they have worked for more than 20 years on daily wages and they retired from their service. But the Management has only paid 7 days' wages as gratuity to them. In fact, they are entitled to the gratuity @ 15 day's wages per year for their service. But the petitioner Management failed to pay gratuity amount. Therefore, they filed a petition before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondnet after hearing both sides, computed the award amount by holding that the respondents workmen are entitled to the gratuity @ 15 days' wages per year of service. Challenging the said order, the Writ petitioner Management preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also correctly dismissed the said appeal by confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. In fact, the matter is covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.18079 of 2016 and 30926 of 2017 dated 11.03.2021. Therefore, the present Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides and perused all the materials available on record.

6. In this case, there is no dispute that the respondents 3 to 8 had worked under the petitioner Management. According to the Writ petitioner Management, these respondents 3 to 8 had worked only as seasonal workmen and the establishment is only a seasonal establishment. There is no dispute that the respondents 3 to 8 had been worked for more than 20 years in the Writ petitioner's Mill. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the common order passed in W.P. No.18079 of 2016 and 30926 of 2017, wherein this Court in para nos.3 to 8 held as follows:-

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners / Sugar Mill vehemen