( 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