1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
1 - Shri G. Satyam S/o Late Shri G. Paidtally, R/o At-Qtr. No. 3/d, Street No. 36,
Zone-2, Sector-11, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg,
2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
1 - Bhilai Steel Plant (Sail) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel
Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
1 - Shri J. P. Tiwari S/o Late Shri R.D. Tiwari R/o At - 26-F, Street No. 11, Sector
2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner (C) Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Controlling Authrority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
1 - Bhilai Steel Plant (Sail) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel
Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
1 - Shri Y. Gangaram S/o. Late Shri Y. Jagannath, R/o. At- Near Durga Mandir,
Zone-Ii, Khursipar, Po- Khursipar, Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh, District :
2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
1 - Bhilai Steel Plant (Sail) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel
Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
1 - Shri Sarbeswar Barik S/o Late Bairagi Chandra Barik R/o At Bapunagar,
Zone-Ii, Khursipar, Po-Khursipar, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District :
2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act. 1972 And
Assistant Labour Commissioner Central Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
1 - Bhilai Steel Plant (Sail) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel
Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
1 - Shri I. Ramanayya S/o Late Shri Latchanna, R/o Qtr. No. 13 / D, Street No.
11, Sector - 2, Bhilai - District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner ( C ) , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
3 - Controlling Authority Uner The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
1 - Bhilai Steel Plant (Sail) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel
Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
1 - Shri T. Rama Rao S/o Late Shri T. Gurayya R/o At-Qtr. No. 78/f, Camp No. 1,
Jalebi Chowk, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
1 - Bhilai Steel Plant (Sail) Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel
Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
1 - Shri Gajendra Rao S/o Late Shri D. Narsayya R/o At Qtr. No. 26 C, Street
No. 53, Zone - 2, Sector - 11, Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
For Petitioner/Bhilai Steel Plant : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate
alongwith Mr. Chetan Singh
Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav,
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
19.03.2025
1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioner i.e. Bhilai Steel Plant has
the orders passed by the Controlling Authority have been affirmed.
2. The facts of the cases are as under:-
operative Societies. The Societies were running Canteens within
the campus of Bhilai Steel Plant. Initially, a writ petition bearing
registration No. M.P. No.2041 of 1992 was filed before the High
employees of Bhilai Steel Plant. The High Court of Madhya
prove their case before the appropriate Forum.
(iv) The Steel Authority of India Ltd. as well as the Workmen Union
pending consideration before the Conciliation Authority. The SLPs
granted service benefits to statutory canteen workers.
Court of Chhattisgarh by Bhilai Steel Plant. The Division Bench of
(ix) Both the parties approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Union and Bhilai Steel Plant arrived at a settlement on 20.10.2004.
4.10 After regularization of canteen workers and payment
of terminal benefits to those terminated from service, all
the co-operative societies running the statutory canteens
will be dissolved forthwith. The assets of these co-
operative canteens, including premises, furniture, utensils,
cooking gadgets, water coolers, etc. which had been given
by BSP as grant shall revert back to BSP."
(x) Pursuant to the settlement dated 20.10.2004, the petitioner
issued appointment orders in favour of the statutory and non-
statutory canteens workers on 28.10.2009. The important terms
and conditions of the appointment orders are reproduced herein
below:-
"The terms & conditions of your appointment are
given below :
1. Your selection is for posting in Bhilai Steel Plant
and for any of the mines owned by the Bhilai Steel
Plant.
2. You will be on probation for a period of one year
which may be extended or curtailed without notice at
the discretion of the company. During the probation
period your pay will be Rs. 4000/- per month.
3. On successful completion of probation, you will be
regularized in the scale of Rs. 4000-3%-5600(S-1)
with notional seniority w.e.f 20.10.2004) You will be
entitled for production incentive of the respective
place of your posting alongwith other allowances as
admissible under the rules of the company.
4. This offer of appointment is subject to your having
not more than one spouse living. You are requested
to furnish a declaration in the enclosed form in this
regard.
5. You shall, if you are already married or get married
to a foreign national during your service period in this
company, report your spouse's particulars such as
name, age, place of residence with full address in the
foreign country.
6. If you are already in service, you will have to
produce a No Objection Certificate from your present
employer at the time of your joining the service of
BSP.
7. TERMINATION OF SERVICE
a. Your services shall stand terminated on attaining
the age of superannuation.
b. During the period of probation, your services can
be terminated by the Company without any notice
and without assigning any reason,
c. After successful completion of the period of
probation, you will be confirmed in this post.
Thereafter, during the entire service period, your
service can be terminated by one month's notice in
writing by either party without assigning any reason.
The company always retains the right of giving you
pay in lieu of notice.
d. Your services shall also be terminable at any time
by the company without any previous notice, if the
company is satisfied on medical evidence that you
are unfit and are likely for a considerable time to
continue to be unfit, for reasons of ill health and
thereby unable to discharge your duties, provided
always that the decision of the company that you are
likely to continue to be unfit shall be conclusively
binding on you.
e. Your services are terminable by the company
without any previous notice, if you are found guilty of
insubordination, intemperance or other misconduct or
of any breach of any rules pertaining to your services
or conduct or non-performance of your duties.
OTHER CONDITIONS:
8. You shall faithfully serve the company, obey its
lawful commands keep its secrets diligently and
carefully learn and perform such work and business
as may be entrusted to you, attend to your work
regularly during such hours as may be prescribed
and perform such duties as may be assigned.
9. You shall be subjected to the service rules and
regulations including Standing Orders(Plant)/
Standing Orders(Mines) as the case may be as well
as the administrative orders of the company in force
from time to time and shall obey all such orders and
directions as you may receive from your superiors.
10. You shall devote your whole time to your duties
and shall not carry on or be concerned in any other
business or occupation whatsoever.
11. You will have to work 8 hours a day and 48 hours
a week and will work in any shift as per requirement.
Your work and conduct shall also be subject to rules
and regulations notified by the company from time to
time.
12. You shall be responsible for the charge and care
of the company's goods and stores and any property
entrusted to you or in your hands and shall truly and
faithfully account for or pay over or deliver to the
proper person all money, goods and stores and
property which shall at any time come to your hand or
under your charge, on account of the company.
13. You shall not take out patent for any inventions
made by you during the period of your service without
the prior permission of the company.
14. You shall be eligible for (a) leave (b) medical
facilities (c) provident fund benefits (d) gratuity (e)
leave salary etc. as admissible under company rules.
15. If any declaration given or information furnished
by you is found to be false, or if it is found that you
have willfully suppressed any material information,
you will be liable for removal from service forthwith
without any notice whatsoever and without assigning
any reasons thereof and to such other action as the
company may deem necessary.
16. Your appointment in the company will be as direct
recruit and the company will not bear any liability on
account of leave salary, pension contribution etc. to
your former employers, if any.
17. You will be liable to serve in any part of India.
18. You will be if so required, liable to serve in any
defence service post connected with the defence of
India for a period of not less that four years, including
the period spent on training, if any, provided that (a)
you will be required to serve as aforesaid after the
expiry of ten years from the date of appointment (b)
you will not ordinarily be required to serve as
aforesaid after attaining the age of forty five years.
19. For joining appointment, you will be eligible for
Travelling Allowance (for self only) as per TA rules of
the company, i.e. fare by the shortest route from your
present residence, provided you produce proof of
your journey.
20. The expression "The company in this letter shall
be deemed to include all or any officers or officer of
the company for the time being placed in authority.
21. Please obtain character certificates in the
enclosed forms from two different Gazetted Officers
of State/Central Govt. and produce the same at the
time of reporting for duty.
22. You should bring with you three passport size
photographs, cost of which will be borne by you.
These will be collected from you at the time of joining
duty.
23. You will fill the enclosed attestation forms and
produce them at the time of joining to the
undersigned.
24. You may please bring the original as well as one
photocopy of the certificates of your qualifications
and experience at the time of joining. Your
appointment is subject to post of satisfactory
evidence of your qualifications/experience prescribed
for the post.
25. You will have to open a bank account in one of
the banks from the enclosed list, according to
posting, immediately after joining and intimate the
account number and name of the bank etc. to the
concerned personnel office for making payment of
wages and other remuneration.
26. The appointment is provisional and is subject to
the caste/tribe certificate being verified through the
proper channels and if the verification reveals that the
claim to belong to scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe
as the case may be, is false, your services will be
terminated forthwith without assigning any further
reasons and without prejudice to such further action
as may be taken under the provision of the Indian
Penal Code for the production of false certificate.
27. The appointment is provisional and is subject to
the community certificate being verified through
proper channels and if the verification reveals that
your claim of belonging to Other Backward Classes
or not to belong to creamy layer is false, your
services will be terminated forthwith without assigning
any further reasons and without prejudice to such
further action as may be taken under the provisions
of the Indian Penal Code for producing of false
certificates.
28. In respect of matters for which no provision exists
in this offer, you shall be governed by the rules of the
company in force from time to time.
29. In case of any dispute on interpretation of any
part of this offer of appointment or the rules
governing your service, the decision of the company
thereon shall be final and binding."
(xi) The workmen retired on account of superannuation from
services; they received retiral dues including the amount of gratuity
and thereafter they moved separate applications before the
Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972 claiming that they
continuously worked with the petitioner establishment without any
break in service from the date of initial appointment till the date of
superannuation. They prayed that the service period, when they
worked under the Cooperative Society may be reckoned to
calculate the amount of gratuity.
(xii) The Controlling Authority vide order dated 7.03.2019 allowed
the application moved by the workmen and directed the petitioner
herein to make payment of gratuity reckoning their services from
the date of initial appointment.
(xiii) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority and the orders passed by the Controlling Authority were
affirmed.
(xiv) The petitioner/Bhilai Steel Plant has challenged the orders
passed by the Appellate Authority in this batch of petitions.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ Bhilai Steel Plant
would submit that initially, the Workmen were the employees of the
Cooperative Societies. He would further submit that they were
never appointed by the Bhilai Steel Plant or the Steel Authority of
India Ltd. He would contend that employees were working with the
canteens. It is argued that they were appointed between the years
1975 to 1980 respectively, but they never claimed regularization or
the status of employees of Bhilai Steel Plant prior to the year 1992.
He would contend that for the first time, a writ petition was filed in
the year 1992 and the matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. A direction was issued to treat the canteen workers as
employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant or to provide them with the
status of employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant. He would further
contend that an Industrial Dispute was also raised by the canteen
workers and an award was passed in their favour on 06.02.2003. A
writ petition was filed by the Bhilai Steel Plant and the matter was
remitted back. He would also contend that during the pendency of
the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
matter was settled between the parties on 20.10.2004 and
appointment orders were issued in their favour. It is argued that the
canteens workers never challenged the settlement arrived at
between the parties dated 20.10.2004 and thus it attained finality.
He would argue that the canteens workers after their retirement and
receiving the amount of gratuity, moved applications at a belated
stage claiming therein the amount of additional gratuity on the
ground that their past services with Cooperative Societies have not
been taken into consideration. He would further argue that the
stand taken by the canteen workers was not tenable before the
Controlling Authority. He would also argue that the canteen workers
got the status of the Bhilai Steel Plant employees in the year 2009
and the Cooperative Societies made payment of gratuity up to 2004
in the year 2010 and they accepted it without raising any objection.
He would further state that the appointment orders issued in favour
of the canteen workers clearly provide that they would get service
benefits from the date of their appointment i.e. 20.10.2004 and
those orders were accepted without any demur. In support of his
submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Petrochemicals
Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Shramik Sena and others,
1999(6) SCC 439 and Balwant Rai Saluja and another Vs. Air
India Limited and others, 2014 (9) SCC 407.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/
Canteens workers would oppose the submissions made by counsel
for the petitioners. He would submit that a Division Bench of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh has already held that the canteens
workers would be entitled to get all benefits which were available to
the Bhilai Steel Plant employees and that order was affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further contend that according to
the terminology used in the memorandum of settlement, it is
apparent that the canteen workers were holding the status of
employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant and this fact has been
considered by the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972. He
would also contend that there is no statutory provision which bars
payment of gratuity to the employees who switched their services
from one establishment to another establishment i.e. from the
Cooperative Society to the Bhilai Steel Plant. He would contend
that according to the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act of 1972,
the employee would be entitled to get the benefit of gratuity for the
completion of every year of service. He would further contend that
the canteen workers worked under the Cooperative Societies and
thereafter the Bhilai Steel Plant, therefore, they are entitled to
receive the gratuity for the period they worked under the
Cooperative Societies as well as under the Bhilai Steel Plant. He
would further submit that there are concurrent findings recorded by
the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Act
of 1972. He would also contend that the appointment orders issued
on 28.10.2009 were in continuation with the previous appointment
orders issued in favour of the canteen workers and those orders
cannot be treated as fresh appointment orders. It is argued that the
canteens were being run under the control and supervision of the
Bhilai Steel Plant. He would further argue that the issue of payment
of gratuity has not been decided either by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would also
argue that for the first time, it has been considered and decided by
the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Act
of 1972. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
M.M.R. Khan and others etc. Vs. Union of India and others etc.,
AIR 1990 SC 937 and Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State
Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (3) SCC 192.
5. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused
the documents placed on the record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shramik Sena (supra)
while dealing with the workmen engaged in the statutory canteens
held that the workmen in the canteens would become the
employees of the management but only for the purpose of the
Factories Act. It is further held that according to the definition of
'worker' as defined under Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, a
'worker' means a person employed, directly or by or through any
agency with or without the knowledge of the principal employer.
Paras 14 & 15 are reproduced herein below:-
"14. At the outset, it must be recorded that Shri
Andhyarujina conceded the fact that the Factories
Act mandated the employer under Section 46 to
provide canteen facilities to its workers, hence, the
canteen run in the establishment of the
management is what has now come to be termed
as a statutory canteen and the workmen in these
canteen do become the employees of the
appellant-management, but only for the purpose of
the Factories Act.
15. Section 2(1) of the Factories Act defines a
`worker' as follows:
"2.(l) worker" means a person (employed,
directly or by or through any agency
(including a contractor) with or without
the knowledge of the principal employer,
whether for remuneration or not) in any
manufacturing process or in cleaning any
part of the machinery or premises used
for a manufacturing process, or in any
other kind of work incidental to, or
connected with, the manufacturing
process, or the subject of the
manufacturing process (but does not
include any member of the armed forces
of the Union)"
7. In the matter of Balwant Rai Saluja (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while referring to the judgment passed in the matter
of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Case (supra) held that the
employees of the statutory canteens are covered within the definition
of 'workmen' under the Act of 1948 and not for all other purposes. It
is further held that the Act of 1948 does not govern the rights of
employees with reference to recruitment, seniority, promotion,
retirement benefits etc. The same viewpoint is reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haldia Refinery Canteen
Employees Union and others v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.,
(2005) 5 SCC 51. Para 87 is reproduced herein below:-
"87 In our considered view, and in light of the
principles applied in the Haldia case (supra),
such control would have nothing to do with
either the appointment, dismissal or removal
from service, or the taking of disciplinary action
against the workmen working in the canteen.
The mere fact that the Air India has a certain
degree of control over the HCI, does not mean
that the employees working in the canteen are
the Air India's employees. The Air India
exercises control that is in the nature of
supervision. Being the primary shareholder in
the HCI and shouldering certain financial
burdens such as providing with the subsidies as
required by law, the Air India would be entitled to
have an opinion or a say in ensuring effective
utilization of resources, monetary or otherwise.
The said supervision or control would appear to
be merely to ensure due maintenance of
standards and quality in the said canteen."
8. Now coming to the judgments relied on by the counsels for
the respondents.
9. In the matter of M.M.R. Khan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held in paras 19 & 20 as under:-
"19. Before us therefore two issues arise for
consideration, viz. (a) whether the employees of
the statutory canteens are railway employees for
the purposes of the said Act? and (b) whether
they are railway employees for all other purposes
as well?
20. As regards the first contention, namely,
whether the said employees are the employees
of the Railway Administration for the purposes of
the said Act, according to us the view taken by
the Calcutta High Court in that behalf is correct.
Section 2(1) of the Factories Act defines "worker"
as follows:
"Worker" means a person employed,
directly or through any agency
(including a contractor) with or without
the knowledge of the principal
employer, whether for remuneration or
not in any manufacturing process or in
cleaning any part of the machinery or
premises used for a manufacturing
process, or in any other kind of work
incidental to, or connected with, the
manufacturing process, or the subject
of the manufacturing process but does
not include any member of the armed
forces of the Union;"
Since in terms of the Rules made by
the State Governments under Section
46 of the Act, it is obligatory on the
Railway Administration to provide a
canteen, and the canteens in question
have been established pursuant to the
said provision there is no difficulty in
holding that the canteens are
incidental to or connected with the
manufacturing process or the subject
of the manufacturing process. The
provision of the canteen is deemed by
the statute as a necessary
concomitant of the manufacturing
activity. Paragraph 2829 of the
Railway Establishment Manual
recognises the obligation on the
Railway Administration created by the
Act and as pointed out earlier
paragraph 2834 makes provision for
meeting the cost of the canteens.
Paragraph 2832 acknowledges that
although the Railway Administration
may employ anyone such as a Staff
Committee or a Co-operative Society
for the management of the canteens,
the legal responsibility for the proper
management rests not with such
agency but solely with the Railway
Administration. If the management of
the canteen is handed over to a
consumer cooperative society the
bye-laws of such society have to be
amended suitably to provide for an
overall control by the Railway
Administration.
10. In the matter of Harjinder Singh (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of Article 38 of the
Constitution of India which deals with equality before law. Paras 44 &
45 are reproduced herein below:-
"44. Commenting on the importance of
Article 38 in the Constitutional
scheme, this court in Sri Srinivasa
Theatre and Others vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu and others [(1992) 2 SCC
643], held that :
"10. Equality before law is a dynamic
concept having many facets. One
facet- the most commonly
acknowledged- is that there shall be
not be any privileged person or class
and that none shall be above the law.
This Court held that Artical 38
contemplates an equal society [Para
10, pg. 651].
45. In Indra Sawhney and Others vs.
Union of India and Others [1992 Supp.
(3) SCC 217], the Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court held that:
"643........The content of the
expression "equality before
law" is illustrated not only by
Articles 15 to 18 but also by the
several articles in Part IV, in
particular, Articles 38, 39, 39-A,
41 and 46."
11. Now coming to the facts of the cases, it is quite vivid that
initially, respondent No.1/workers were employees of the Co-
operative Societies. The Societies were running Canteens within the
campus of the Bhilai Steel Plant. The canteen workers were
appointed after 1975. There was no dispute till 1992. In the year
1992, the employees of the Canteens filed a writ petition before the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petition was disposed of vide
order dated 12.12.1995 and the Bhilai Steel Plant was directed to
grant canteens workers the status of workers of Bhilai Steel Plant. In
the Letters Patent Appeal, the order passed by the Writ Court was
modified and the benefit was extended only to the statutory canteens
workers. The non-statutory canteens workers were granted liberty to
raise the industrial dispute. An award was passed in their favour.
Ultimately, the matter was settled between the parties on
20.10.2004. The Bhilai Steel Plant issued appointment orders in
favour of the canteen workers.
12. According to the memorandum of settlement, all workers on
rolls of statutory Cooperative Canteens would be considered for
induction on the rolls of Bhilai Steel Plant. The workers of non-
statutory canteens would be placed as NMR for a period of two
years. The terms and conditions mentioned in the orders of
appointment would show that the canteen workers were offered a
fresh appointment. The amount of gratuity till 20.10.2004 was paid to
the canteen workers by Cooperative Societies and it was accepted
without raising any objection.
13. Section 4 of the Act of 1972 states that gratuity shall be
payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after
he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years.
14. Section 1(3) of the Act of 1972 states that it shall apply to
every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company.
Admittedly, the canteen workers were employees of the Cooperative
Societies between the years 1975 to 1980. Till 1992, they did not
claim the status of workers of Bhilai Steel Plant. In the year 1992, a
writ petition was filed and an order was passed on 12.12.1995 and a
direction was issued to grant canteens workers the status of the
workers of the Bhilai Steel Plant. The matter went up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and ultimately, the dispute was settled between the
parties. The canteen workers accepted appointment orders without
raising any objections.
15. The canteen workers also accepted the amount of gratuity
paid by the Cooperative Societies without any demur. They got
retired from services on account of superannuation and they were
paid all retiral dues including the gratuity. Thereafter, they moved
applications before the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972
claiming therein the amount of gratuity, reckoning their services from
the date of their initial appointment in the Cooperative Societies.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balwant Rai
Saluja (supra) has held that the employees have to plead and prove
the fact that they were under the Control of the establishment with
reference to recruitment, seniority, promotion, retirement benefits
etc. It is also held that the employees of the statutory canteens are
covered within the definition of 'workmen' under the Act of 1948 but
not for all other purposes.
17. In my opinion, the canteen workers would be entitled to claim
parity at par with the employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant according to
the Factories Act, 1948, but reckoning their services before the
issuance of appointment orders by the Bhilai Steel Plant appears to
be misconceived.
18. The canteen workers were appointed pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the Cooperative Societies and they had
accepted the terms and conditions of appointment orders. They
worked there for 15 to 17 years and thereafter claimed the status of
employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant.
19. The canteen workers after retirement were paid retiral dues
including the gratuity and they accepted it without raising any
objection. They also accepted the amount of gratuity paid by
Cooperative Societies.
20. There was no reason or occasion for the canteen workers to
move applications for payment of gratuity when it was finally paid by
the petitioner and accepted by employees.
21. The canteen workers also accepted the settlement arrived at
between the parties on 20.10.2004 and the orders of appointments.
Therefore, they cannot be permitted to deviate from the terms and
conditions of the appointment orders, particularly when they never
challenged the terms and conditions of orders of appointment.
22. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, the
orders passed by the Controlling Authority and affirmed by the
Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972 are not sustainable in the
eyes of the law. The orders passed by those authorities in all writ
petitions are hereby quashed.
23. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed to the extent indicated
herein-above. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
