The main legal point established is that Major Ports are governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the harmonious construction of relevant sections is crucial in interpreting the applicability of the Act to Major Ports.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J. - The short question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the Paradeep Port Trust, a Major Port is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity.

2. Some of the retired employees of the petitioner-trust, i.e. Paradeep Port Trust have filed several petitions before the Controlling Authority, i.e. opposite party no. 1 for payment of differential amount of gratuity under the Act' and seeking various other relief under the Act. On the basis of such applications, the Controlling Authority issued notice to the petitioner-trust directing it to show-cause why relief sought under the Gratuity Act shall not be granted to the employees. Petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no. 8957 of 2005 seeking to quash the notices issued by the controlling Authority on the plea of lack of jurisdiction.

3. Petitioner claimed that it being a 'Major Port' is not coming under the applicability of the Gratuity Act as the relevant Section does not make the Act application to Major Port though the Ports are included in the Act. Major Port is governed under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the 'MPT Act', and the said Act gives the Board independent powers to make regulations for payment of gratuity along with other services conditions subject to approval of Central Government. The Petitioner-trust has drafted its own regulations and sent the same for approval to the Central Government. Petitioner-trust functions under the Central Government as the Central Government has the ultimate power and control to frame rules, directions supersede the Board and inspect to work, appoint the Chairman and Board of Trustees, as it is a statutory authority under the 'MPT Act'. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, this Court directed the petitioner-trust to raise preliminary objection before the Controlling Authority with regard to applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act to the Paradeep Port Trust. The Court further directed that the said objections shall be decided first before proceeding with the hearing of the case.

Pursuant to the Hon'ble Court's directions, the petitioner-trust raised the preliminary objection, which was negatived by the Controlling Authority by the order dated 19.09.2005. Petitioner-trust assails such order on the ground that it i bad in law, misconceived, based on conjectures and surmises. Hence, petitioner-trust prayed to quash the order passed by the Controlling Authority.

4. Opposite party nos. 2 to 7 have filed their counter affidavit, inter alia, pleading that the Paradeep Port Trust, hereinafter referred to as the 'P.P.T.' has been declared as a 'Major Port' by the Central Government. The Central Government has appointed the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Bhubaneswar as the controlling Authority under the provisions of the Gratuity Act in relation to establishment for the State of Orissa. P.P.T. is one of them and comes under the coverage of the Act and jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Bhubaneswar.

Opposite parties also contended that an appeal lies from the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), Bhubaneswar to 'the appellate authority and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. The specific case of the opposite parties is that P.P.T. is a Port Trust and constitution of Paradeep Port Trust Board is for management of the Port. It's employees were neither in State nor in Central Government service. They became employees of Trust Board, which is an autonomous body. It is further pleaded that the activities/functions of Port and Major Port are very similar. Hence, there is no difference in nature of employees'. It is further contended that the major ports are governed by the industrial Dispute (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971. It is further contended that the major Port Trust is covered under the Act.

6. It is further contended by the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 that as per the