The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to all employees regardless of their engagement status, including seasonal or temporary workers. Employers are bound by administrative circulars offering superior gratuity benefits, and the statutory authority retains jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims.

ORDER :

Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions being one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. For the purpose of deciding the issue, the facts, as narrated in W.P.No.5347 of 2026 is considered, as the facts in the other writ petitions are also similar to the facts in the aforesaid writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner/Sugar Mill is the Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and it is a seasonal industry involved in the business of producing sugar by crushing the sugarcane and it takes place only during the season as and when the sugarcane, which is available for crushing. The said crushing activity would depend upon the monsoon and the cultivation of sugarcane in the area and the supply of sugarcane from the agriculturists. The third respondent/workman was initially employed in the petitioner/Mill. Subsequently, he got retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and as per the last drawn pay of the workman per month, his eligibility period of service for gratuity was calculated and gratuity amount was paid to him on the date of superannuation at the rate of 7 days wages every year over the entire period of service. However, after a lapse of several years, the workman has filed application under Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (in short 'the Act') before the second respondent claiming gratuity amount and the second respondent/Controlling Authority allowed the said application and directed the petitioner/Mill to pay the gratuity amount for a period of 15 days per year for the total period of service. Challenging the same, the petitioner/Mill preferred appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act before the first respondent, however, the same was rejected on the ground that the appeal was preferred beyond the period of limitation from the date of order of the second respondent. Challenging the concurrent findings rendered by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the above writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in all these petitions submitted that, the petitioner/Mill is registered under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and not being an establishment to which the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies and the employees of the Mills are entitled to claim gratuity only under the provisions of the By-laws of the Society. Accordingly, the gratuity amount was paid to the workmen by calculating 7 days wages per year for the total period of service at the time of superannuation based on the scheme. If at all the workmen have any grievance, they have to file appeal before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 1(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, however, they have filed applications before the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, which is not sustainable. He further submits that the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has no power to decide the issue in respect of the employees employed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act in the petitioner/Mill. Since there is a separate scheme provided for payment of gratuity claiming gratuity amount, filing application before the second respondent is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the above writ petitions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/workmen in all the writ petitions submits that, t