The provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 override any inconsistent provisions in other enactments or contracts, and employees who have completed 240 days of service in each calendar year are entitled to gratuity under the Act, even if their services are governed to some extent by other regulations.

( 1 ) WHETHER the respondent No. 1 in these nine analogous writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as first, second and third petitions and so on), was entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (compendiously the Act) and under similar other law, or whether the respondent No. 1 in all these petitions were seasonal employees and not entitled to be paid gratuity as their services were governed by the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service regulations, 1975 (for short the Regulations) are the short questions for determination. As these petitions involve similar questions, consequently it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23042 of 1990 shall, however, be the leading case.

( 2 ) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that the petitioners in these petitions are the Cane Growers Union, the employer, whereas respondent No. 1 in all these petitions are the workmen. Respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition No. 23042 of 1990 retired on December 31, 1985 and made an application for payment of gratuity as he had rendered continuous service for not less than 5 years. Consequently he was entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE case set up by Respondent No. 1 was contested by the petitioners with the averments that respondent No. 1 was the seasonal employee and not a permanent employee. Consequently the service conditions of respondent No. 1 were governed by the provisions of U. P. Cane cooperative Service Regulations, 1975, framed under Section 122 of the U. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1965. Under Regulation 141 an employee who retires on completing 58 years of age or after completion of the age of 55 years, or in case he does any service to the Cane Union or the Federation, as the case may be, and puts in five years good, efficient and faithful service, will be paid gratuity at the following rate for every completed year of service i. e. 1 months pay for each year service for five years or over, subject to the limit of 15 months pay. But according to petitioner as respondent No. 1 has not put in 5 years continuous good, efficient and faithful service, hence there was no question of payment of any gratuity. In the alternative it was the case or petitioner that as the respondent No. 1 was seasonal workman employed only during sugar cane crushing season, hence not entitled to payment of gratuity.

( 4 ) AS there was dispute with regard to payment of gratuity, the employer, the petitioner having denied the same, whereas the respondent No. 1 having claimed the same, hence an application was made by respondent No. 1 and the Controlling Authority under Section 7 (4) (c) of the Act, after making due enquiry and after giving parties to the dispute reasonable opportunity of being heard, decided the matter in favour of respondent No. 1 by order dated May 14, 1988 (Annexure-1 to the petition), holding that respondent No. 1 was not a casual or seasonal workman, rather he has put in more than 5 years continuous service, hence was entitled to payment of gratuity.

( 5 ) THE petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7 (7) of the act, but the Appellate Authority confirmed the decision of the Controlling Authority by judgment and order dated July 26, 1990 (Annexure-2 to the petition ). The petitioner has preferred the present petitions to quash those orders by issuing a writ of certiorari.

( 6 ) SRI Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that respondent No. 1 in every writ petition was not in continuous service for more than five years, rather he was seasonal employee employed only during the crushing season and the case of respondent No. 1 was not covered by Section 4 of the Act, nor he was covered by the definition of "employee" as given under Section 2 (e) of the Act, inasmuch as his services were governed under Chapter XVI regulation 141 of the Regulations, hence the provisions of su