Varma, J. - (1.) This bunch of petitions is being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversy raised therein is identical. The petitions have been filed by the National Textile Corporation (Uttar Pradesh), Ltd., against the orders passed by the Controlling Authority, Kanpur, constituted by the State Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, upholding the claims of the workers and officers of an erstwhile textile mills, namely, Laxmirattan Cotton Mills as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, namely, the Additional Labour Commissioner, constituted by the State Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
(2.) The impugned orders have been challenged on a variety of grounds by the petitioner; but one ground, on which learned counsel mainly relied, is sufficient for the disposal of this group of cases. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the factory, in which the contesting respondents were employed either as workmen or as officers, was under the control of the Central Government which had taken over the management of the Laxmirattan and Atherton West Cotton Mills, under the Laxmirattan and Atherton West Cotton Mills (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act and consequently in terms of Section 2(a)(i)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Central Government would be the appropriate Government in the present case for appointment of an officer to an act as the Controlling Authority under Section 3 of the said Act and as in the present case admittedly the claims lodged by the contesting workmen/officers were filed before the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government the orders passed by the said Authority are completely null and void. For the same reason the orders passed by the Appellate Authority constituted by the State Government are also liable to be quashed.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find considerable merit in the above contention. In order to appreciate the controversy it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions. Section 2(a)(i)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act provides: "2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, (a) 'appropriate Government' means, (i) in relation to an establishment( c) of a factory belonging to or under the control of, the Central Government." Section 3 of the said Act says that the appropriate Government, may by notification, appoint any officer to be a Controlling Authority, who shall be responsible for the administration of this Act and different Controlling Authority may be appointed for different areas.;