JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge in O.J.C .No. 8236 of 1999 the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The case has a chequered career. Respondents 2 to 166 are the retired employees of the appellant, Steel Authority of India (for short, the ‘SAIL’) Though initially, they were holding non-executive posts, by efflux of time, they were promoted to executive posts. They retired, on attaining the age of superannu¬ation, prior to 24.9.1997, when the Payment of Gratuity Act was amended.

The SAIL paid one lakh rupees to each of the respondents Nos. 2 to 166 towards their gratuity in consonance with Section 4 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).Being aggrieved by such payment, applications were filed under Rule 10, Sub-rule (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Act (Respondent No. 1) inter alia, claiming that they are entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 3,00,617.30 paise towards gratuity and praying for issuance of a direction to SAIL to pay the balance sum of Rs. 2,00,617.30 paise; being the differential amount.

The appellant took a stand before the Competent Authority that, Respondents 2 to 166 being Executives are only entitled to a sum of one lakh rupees. It is further submitted that the Steel Executive Federation of India (for brevity, the ‘SEFI’) had filed a writ application in the Delhi High Court being CPW No. 486 of 1995 challenging the validity of the provisions of the SAIL Gratuity Rules and praying for a declaration to apply the said Rules to the Executives as are applicable to the non-Executives, by removing restrictions prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The prayer made in the said writ application is identically same to the prayer made before the Controlling Authority. The Delhi High Court, by a well discussed judgment dismissed the writ petition. The respondent Nos. 2 to 166 are members of the Rourke¬la Steel Plant Executive Association which is affiliated to SEFI and are bound by the judgment. In that view of the matter, the proceeding before the Competent Authority, on the self-same grounds, is no more maintainable and is hit by the principles of res judicata. The appellant prayed to reject the petition as not maintainable. The Controlling Authority, however, refused to pass any order with regard to maintainability and proceeded to hear the matter on merit. The appellant approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 1076 of 1999 and O.J.C. No. 5998 of 1999. This Court disposed of the said writ applications by directing the Control¬ling Authority to decide the question of maintainability first by a speaking order and further directing that, till the question of maintainability is decided, the matter shall not proceed further.

Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Controlling Authority heard the matter, and by a reasoned order dated 28.6.1999 (Annexure-5), held that the proceeding is not barred by the principles of ‘res judicata’ and the applications filed under the Act and the Rules are maintainable. The said order was im¬pugned before this Court in O.J.C. No. 8236 of 1999. The Hon’ble Single Judge, by order dated the 21st December, 2002, arrived at a conclusion that the prayers made in the writ applications filed by SEFI before the Delhi High Court and the prayer made in the applications filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 166 are not identical¬ly same. There is also no material to reveal that SEFI had taken consent of the present respondents 2 to 166 for filing the writ application before the Delhi High Court on behalf of the Associa¬tion, and that, simply because, the Association of respondents 2 to 166 is affiliated to the SEFI, it cannot be said that the acts of the SEFI are also the acts of the present Association. On the basis of such conclusion the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the writ application with an observation tha