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 different