B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) Whether the respondent No. 1 in these nine analogous writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as first, second and third petitions and so on), was entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (compendiously the Act) and under similar other law, or whether the respondent No. 1 in all these petitions were seasonal employees and not entitled to be paid gratuity as their services were governed by the U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975 (for short the Regulations) are the short questions for determination. As these petitions involve similar questions, consequently it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23042 of 1990 shall, however, be the leading case.
(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners in these petitions are the Cane Growers Union, the employer, whereas respondent No. 1 in all these petitions are the workmen. Respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition No. 23042 of 1990 retired on December 31, 1985 and made an application for payment of gratuity as he had rendered continuous service for not less than 5 years. Consequently he was entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act.
(3.) The case set up by Respondent No. 1 was contested by the petitioners with the averments that respondent No. 1 was the seasonal employee and not a permanent employee. Consequently the service conditions of respondent No. 1 were governed by the provisions of U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975, framed under Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Under Regulation 141 an employee who retires on completing 58 years of age or after completion of the age of 55 years, or in case he does any service to the Cane Union or the Federation, as the case may be, and puts in five years' good, efficient and faithful service, will be paid gratuity at the following rate for every completed year of service i.e. 1 month's pay for each year service for five years or over, subject to the limit of 15 month's pay. But according to petitioner as respondent No. 1 has not put in 5 years continuous good, efficient and faithful service, hence there was no question of payment of any gratuity. In the alternative it was the case or petitioner that as the respondent No. 1 was seasonal workman employed only during sugar cane crushing season, hence not entitled to payment of gratuity.;