IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that MECOFED is liable to provide gratuity to its employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the principle of delay and laches can bar employees' entitlement to gratuity.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India comes with a prayer for direction by this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus or order of such nature directing the respondents-authority to make payment of gratuity along with interest to the petitioners herein.

2. The petitioners are employees at various posts under the Meghalaya State Co-operative Marketing & Consumer's Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as MECOFED) Lumdiengjri, Shillong-02, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya during various tenures till retirement on the due date.

3. The crux of the challenge in this writ petition has its genesis in a retirement package, termed as the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) which is also referred as the 'Golden Handshake Scheme' offered by the respondent authority during the year 2001-2002 which was accepted by some of the employees, about 95 of them, but was declined by the petitioners who had chosen to continue in service, after which having completed their due tenure of service, the petitioners' services came to be terminated by their reaching the retirement age in the usual course.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that since the inception of MECOFED, the subject of 'payment of gratuity' has been a long pending demand of the employees and to that effect several representations have been made by the employees. However, it was when the matter on the issue reached the Supreme Court wherein in its order dated 02.04.2018 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 35923/2017 it was directed that the respondent No. 3 herein is to pay 'Gratuity' to the employees who had accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, that the respondent paid the gratuity to the employees who had accepted the VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme).

5. On coming to know of the decision of the respondent to pay gratuity to only those employees who had accepted the VRS, several employees, including the petitioners approached the respondent-authority with an application dated 19.06.2018 to also demand payment of gratuity to them, but to no response, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court. Hence this petition.

6. The respondent No. 3 is the only one who has filed the affidavit-in-opposition as the respondents No. 1 & 2 respectively have submitted that the main contender in this lis is the respondent No. 3 and as such, no affidavit was filed on their behalf.

7. The respondent No. 3 in the affidavit-in-opposition has, at the outset stated that the petitioners have come before this Court with unclean hands inasmuch as they have suppressed material facts and have given misleading statements. The petition is also hit by inordinate delay and laches, acquiescence and waiver as the petitioners approached this Court only after more than 10 years after they have retired from service without any complaint or otherwise about their alleged entitlement to gratuity knowing fully well that the service rules does not provide for the same.

8. It is also averred that the MECOFED being a Co-operative Society registered under the Meghalaya Cooperative Societies Act, 2015, does not come under the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the service conditions of the employees are governed by the 'Classification, Appointment, Control and Appeal Rules, 1980' (CACA Rules) wherein under these rules, there is no provision for payment of gratuity to its employees since the inception of the Society.

9. It is also stated that the Society has been incurring loss since 1982-83 with a huge debt liability towards the Meghalaya Co-Operative Apex Bank for which even the regular salary to the employees could not be paid. Accordingly, a scheme was devised to work out a better retirement package to the employees which is in the form of the Golden Handshake/Voluntary Retirement Scheme calling upon those employees who wanted to opt for this scheme to be retired from service on payment of certain benefits.

10. That the 95 employees who has opted for th