IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON :07.03.2024 DELIVERED ON : 03.06.2024 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.Nos.14649, 16404,16407, 16409, 16414, 16420, 17014, 17019, 17023, 17026, 17028 of 2022 W.P.No.14649 of 2022 C.Selvaraj ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tirupattur Co-op., Sugar Mills Ltd., Kethandapatti, Thirupattur District-635 815.

2.The Commissioner, Sugar Corporation, No.690, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue the balance 8 days gratuity amount with interest to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ezhilraj For R1 : Mr.R.Neethiperumal For R2 : Mr.P.Sanjaygandhi, Govt., Advocate

COMMON ORDER

The management of Tirupattur Co-operative Sugar Mill has filed the above writ petitions, except W.P.No.14649 of 2022, which is filed by the workman.

2.The Management will be referred to as Petitioner and the 3rd Respondents as the Workmen.

3.The petitioner is a Sugar Mill and it is stated that the third respondents were seasonal workman engaged by it. It is the case of the petitioner that the workmen were all employed as NMR/ casual employees and were paid daily wages for the services rendered by them during the crushing season and no time scale of pay was fixed for them. On the basis of the services rendered by the Workmen, gratuity was calculated for the period of service as NMR and Seasonal Employer on the basis of the Circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sugar and Sec. 2A (3) and Sec. 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Aggrieved by the gratuity amount paid by the petitioner, the Workmen filed applications before the controlling authority under the payment of gratuity Act in PG 120/16 etc., claiming difference of gratuity. The controlling authority vide order dated 28.04.2017 allowed the applications of the workmen. Aggrieved by the award of the PG authority, the petitioner filed appeals before the appellate authority in PGA 172/17 etc. The appellate authority, in the appeals confirmed the order of the PG authority vide award dated 03.09.2021. Aggrieved by the award of the appellate authority, the writ petitions are filed by the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities ie., respondents 1 and 2 without considering that the sugar mill was a seasonal establishment and without properly considering the Government circulars, issued by the Commissioner of Sugar and the Provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act as to continuous service erroneously allowed the applications.

5.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the authorities on the facts of the case and the evidence on record found that the workmen were not seasonal employees. The learned counsel further submitted that the Workmen worked for more than 40 years and that they were continuously employed during their service. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the authorities had rightly calculated gratuity at 15 days wages for every year of service.

6.I have heard both the learned counsels and I have perused the materials on record.

7. The petitioner states that there are 3 categories of employees in its Mills. The three categories are regular, seasonal and nominal muster roll. The petitioner states the NMR's were paid on daily wages basis for the days they actually worked. The petitioner states that the workmen who were NMR's were absorbed as seasonal employees by issuing appointment orders and thereafter time scale of pay was determined and service book maintained. Depending on the number of years of service rendered by the Workmen as seasonal employees the gratuity was calculated as per the last drawn salary and on the basis of the circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sugar at 7 days wages per year. As the Workmen did not complete 20 year of service as seasonal employees, gratuity was calculated at 7 days wag