Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ved Byas Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopal Narain holding brief of Sri Shyam Narain learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The present petition is directed against the orders dated 25.4.2016 and 1.6.2018 arising out of the proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act’ 1972 (herein after referred as Act’ 1972). Only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the orders impugned is that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Limited v. Additional Labour Commissioner and others, 2007 (11) SCC 756, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to non-payment of gratuity to the employees of the Co-operative Sugar Mills namely Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills, Ltd, Nanauta, District-Saharanpur. It is contended that for any dispute raised by the workman of the Co-operative Sugar Mills, after the enforcement of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act’ 1965 (herein after referred as Act’ 1965), the forum as provided therein would have to be approached. Under Section 70 of the Act’ 1965, any dispute relating to claim for the amount due, if made, shall be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Reference has also been made to the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar Mills and Distilleries Employees Service Regulation’ 2015 (hereinafter referred as the “Regulation’ 2015") framed in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 122 of the Act’ 1965 to state that the matters regarding recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of services including disciplinary control of the employees of U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories and Distilleries Employees are covered by the said Regulation.

3. Regulation 29 of the Regulation’ 2015 provides that the Payment of Gratuity to the employees shall be made according to the Gratuity (Production) Act’ 1972 as amended from time to time. And where gratuity trust is established, the rules of registered gratuity trust shall apply.

4. Reference has also been made to the judgments of this Court in Writ-C No. 42285 of 1998 (The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills, Satha Aligarh v. State of U.P. and others), Writ-C No. 10601 of 1998 (The Kisan Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and others) and Writ-C No. 44864 of 2005 (M/s Pradhan Prabandhak, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill v. State of U.P. and others) to submit that in all these matters following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank (supra), it was held that the dispute could not have been referred to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The award of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal was, consequently, set aside.

5. In a feeble submission, on the merits of the order passed passed by the Payment of Gratuity Authority, it is contended that the workman being a daily wage employee was not entitled for gratuity.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, summits that the issue being raised with regard to the jurisdiction of Payment of Gratuity Authority is not open for contest, in as much as, it was not raised before the said authority at the first opportunity. Even otherwise the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank (supra) would have no application.

7. On merits, it is submitted that the Payment of Gratuity Authority had recorded a categorical finding that the workmen had worked in the establishment from the year 1984 till 6.9.2011. Barring three years, in each year of the aforesaid period, he had worked for more than 240 days and as such, he was covered by the “definition” of “employee” under the Payment of Gratuity Act and was entitled for gratuity for 15 days in one calendar year.

8. There is no dispu