Seasonal employees engaged for more than 240 days per year are entitled to gratuity at 15 days' wages per year under the Payment of Gratuity Act, not the lower rate.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri Anand Shanker Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 as well as learned State Counsel and perused the records.

2. The controversy in the present case in regarding the payment of gratuity to the seasonal employees, employed with the CoOperative Cane Development Union Ltd., Phardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, at the rate of 15 days' wages each year for service rendered by them.

3. Sri Anand Shanker Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 both have jointly informed this Court that the aforesaid controversy has been decided by this Court in two judgments, namely, Mahak Singh v. Appellate Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Payment of Gratuity in Writ-C No.11140 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019 and also in Misc. Single No.8053 of 2011 ( Daya Shankar Agnihotri v. Appellate Authority Under The Payment of Gratuity Act and Another) dated 13.08.2019. Both the Co-ordinate Benches of This Court have independently considered the submissions an held that seasonal clerk employed by a Cane Co-operative Society who works for more than 240 days in a year is entitled to gratuity @ 15 days' wages, worked out on the wages last drawn during the last year that he has worked for 240 days in accordance with section 4 (2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for all such years that a seasonal clerk has worked for more than 240 days in a year, even in a seasonal establishment, his gratuity cannot be worked out under the second proviso of Section 4 (2) of the Act @ 7 days' wages for each season.

4. It has been submitted that both these judgments were subjected to a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by means of order dated 21.03.2002 in Special Appeal No.25228 of 2019 (Cooperative Cane Development Ltd. v. Mahak Singh). It is clear that the said controversy has already attained finality and accordingly, the present writ petition is also to be disposed of in terms of the findings recorded by this Court. For the sake of convenience, the judgment passed in Misc. Single No.8053 of 2011 ( Daya Shankar Agnihotri v. Appellate Authority Under The Payment of Gratuity Act and Another) dated 13.08.2019, is quoted herein-under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paramanand Asthana for the respondent no.2.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 9.6.2009 passed by the Controlling Authority in PG Case No.2 of 2006 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was employed as Seasonal Clerk in the establishment of respondent no.2 i.e. Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Hargaon, District Sitapur initially on 31.12.1974 and continued working as such upto the age of superannuation on 31.8.2003. He completed 29 years of continuous service under the respondent no.2 and at the time of his retirement, the petitioner was being given Rs. 5392/- per month as salary and after his retirement, the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission became applicable and his pay was fixed as Rs. 6678/- per month.

4. Since the petitioner was not being paid gratuity of Rs. 90,212/- by the respondent no.2, but was only paid Rs. 40,171/- as gratuity, he filed PG Case No.2 of 2006. The Controlling Authority after hearing both the parties, passed the order on 9.6.2009 only partly allowing the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an application, praying to t