Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH Date: 2025.03.11 12:10:22 +0530 2025:CGHC:9949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 63 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri V. Dharma Rao S/o Late Vaddi Jogulu, Ex- Hospital Attendant, Medical Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. 42/ A, Street No. 16, Sector-2, Post 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 ( C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 64 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus -2- 1 - Shri Mathew Jacob S/o Late K.M. Jacob, Ex-Technician (Planning), Tpni ( E), Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. 3/ B, Street No. 16, 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, Chhattisgarh 3 - Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 65 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri G. Joga Rao S/o Late G. Krishnamma, Ex- Hospital Attendant, Medical Deptt. Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. 44, Street No. 36, Sector-11, Zone-2, 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 ( C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 66 of 2020 3 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai , District Durg , Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri T. Suryanarayan S/o Late T. Vauayya Ex Room Boy Cum Attendant, Section Common Under Agm (Ghs) , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. 7f , Street No. 49, Zone 2, Khursipar, Post 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 (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 67 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Shri K. Gummadi, S/o Late Shri Koda Bairagi, R/o Qtr. No. 92/ B, Camp - 1, 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 (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) -4- with WPL No. 68 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri G. Krishna Rao S/o Late Jagannaikulu Ex- Hospital Attendant (Nursing), Medical Department, Bhilai Steel Plant R/o Qtr. No. 11/f, Street Bo.- 28, Sector-11, Zone-2, 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 (C) Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 70 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri S. Suryanarayan S/o Late Pottaiya Ex Attendant , Emd , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai R/o Purana Dak Bangla, Puraina, Bhilai , Post Office Bhilai 3, 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 5 Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 71 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri R. Tatha Rao S/o Late Rikka Musalayya Ex - Staff Attendant , Genl. Estt. Department , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. 15/e, Street No. 5, Sector-4, 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 (C) , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 72 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri B. Kamaraju S/o Late B. Chinaya, Ex- Operative, C O And C C D Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. B/3, Street No. 52, Khursipar, Zone- 2, Post Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh -6- 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 ( C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 73 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Simadri Dalai S/o Late Lakhan Dalai Ex Attendant, Phed Department , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai R/o Qtr,. No. 2/f , Street No. 31, Sector 1, 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 (C) , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 74 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 7 1 - Shri T. Appa Rao S/o Late Narsimhalu Ex - Operative, Co And Ccd, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai R/o Ganesh Mandir, Jyotinagar, Zone-3, Khursipar, Post- 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 (C) , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 75 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Bandhu Nayak S/o Late Ketra Mohan Nayak Ex.- Hospital Attendant, Bhilai Steel Plant, Medical Department, R/o Qtr. No. 19a, Av-D, Sector-11, Post- 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 (C) , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 76 of 2020 -8- 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant ,bhilai , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri K. Kamaraju S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Ex.- Attedant, Phed Department Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. 6/b, Street No. 11, Sector-2, Post 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 (C) , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 77 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Phirangilal Sahu S/o Late Shri S.R. Sahu C/o Sunita Kirana Store, Krishna Nagar, Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 491001., 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 (C) Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 9 with WPL No. 78 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri K. Mohan Rao, S/o Late Shri K. Sanyasi, R/o Qtr. No. 8/ C, Street No. - N P A, 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 (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 81 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri D. Trinath S/o Late D. Erayya, Ex- Attendant-Cum- Operative, Blast Furnace, Bhilai Steel Plant, R/o Street No. 51, Zone-2, Sector-11, Khurispar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 491001, 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 ( C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh -10- with --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 79 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Dayanidhi S/o Late Dhanu Dalai Ex Attendant , Common Pool Msds Ii, Bhilai Steel Plant , Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. 19/a , Abd, Zone 2, 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 ( C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 80 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Kartik Ram S/o Late Maya Ram Shirange, Ex- Cooking Asst. Ioc Manual Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant, R/o Ratan Niwas, Shankarpara, Ward No. 6, Supela, Po. Supela, 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, 11 Chhattisgarh 3 - Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 88 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri G.M. Kondayya, S/o Late M. Kondayya, Ex - Technician (Rigging), C R M (Mech) Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, R/o Qtr. No. 4 / A, Street No. 62, Sector-6, 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 (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 87 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri K. V. Bharathan S/o Late K.I. Velayudhan Ex-Hospital Attendant, Bhilai Steel Plant, Medical Department, R/o At Qtr. No. 11/c, Av- D, Sector -12- - 6, 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 (C) Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 92 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri K. Chinnaya, S/o Late K. Chinnaih Ex-Attendant (School), Nandini Township, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, R/o Qtr. No. 88a, Ward No. 21, Jalebi Chowk, Camp-I, 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 (C), Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 91 of 2020 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 13 Versus 1 - Shri C.H. Mohan Rao S/o Late Mulayya Ex- Hospital Attendant (Nursingh), Medical Department, Bhilai Steel Plant R/o Balaji Nagar, Zone-2, Khursipar, Ward No. 32, Post 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 (C), Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPL No. 250 of 2019 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant (Sail) Through Chief Executive Officer , Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh....(Petitioner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri K. Ramlu S/o Late Shri K. Appanna R/o At 78/h, Camp No. 1, Bhilai , District - Durg Chhattisgarh...(Respondents), 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 : ---- Respondents Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondents -14- : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate and Mr.Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.02.2025 1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioner i.e. Bhilai Steel Plant has challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act of 1972’) whereby the orders passed by the Controlling Authority have been affirmed. 2. The facts of the cases are as under:- (i) Respondent No.1/Workers were initially appointed by the Co- 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 Court of Madhya Pradesh by the statutory and non-statutory canteens workers claiming therein regularization and status of employees of Bhilai Steel Plant. The High Court of Madhya
Decision
Pradesh disposed of that petition vide order dated 12.12.1995 and a direction was issued to the Bhilai Steel Plant to grant canteens workers the status of workers of Bhilai Steel Plant and to pay them minimum pay revised structure of the wages according to Chapter III of the Memorandum of Agreement of the National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry. 15 (ii) The Workers were granted liberty to approach the Industrial Court to claim other service benefits. (iii) A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the Steel Authority of India and the order passed by the writ Court was modified to the effect that only statutory canteens workers would be entitled to get the benefit and the benefit extended to non-statutory canteens workers was set aside and those employees were permitted to prove their case before the appropriate Forum. (iv) The Steel Authority of India Ltd. as well as the Workmen Union approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (v) The SLP filed by the Workmen was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.07.1997 on the ground that an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner and the matter was pending consideration before the Conciliation Authority. The SLPs preferred by the petitioner herein and the Trade Union were also dismissed. (vi) The Industrial Court passed an award on 06.02.2003 and granted service benefits to statutory canteen workers. (vii) The order passed by the Industrial Court dated 06.02.2003 was assailed by filing Writ Petition No.1498 of 2003 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh by Bhilai Steel Plant. The Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 29.09.2005 quashed the award -16- dated 06.02.2003 and the matter was remitted back to the Industrial Court for a fresh adjudication. (ix) Both the parties approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, the Workmen, Trade Union and Bhilai Steel Plant arrived at a settlement on 20.10.2004. The relevant terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement clauses 4.6, 4.7 and 4.10 are as under: “4.6 All workers on rolls of statutory cooperative Canteens in Bhilai Steel Plant will be considered for induction on the rolls of Bhilai Steel Plant in S-1 grade, from a prospective date, subject to being declared fit in medical examination, to be conducted as per the provisions of MP Factories Rules. They shall be entitled to DA and all other allowances applicable to regular employees of BSP from the said date. 4.7 Workers of non-statutory canteens will also be placed as NMR for a period of two years, subject to being declared fit in medical examination, and thereafter will be considered for induction on the rolls of Bhilai Steel Plant in S-1 grade. The emolument drawn by them as co-operative employee shall be protected. 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:- 17 “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 -18- 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 19 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 -20- 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 21 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. Mr. Bharat, the learned Senior Advocate 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 -22- 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. Mr. Bharat would also argue that the canteen workers got the status of the Bhilai Steel Plant employees in the year 2009 and the Cooperative 23 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, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents/Canteens workers would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Yadav 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. Mr. Yadav 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 -24- Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972. Mr. Yadav 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. Mr. B. Gopa Kumar 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. Mr. B. Gopa Kumar 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 25 and decided by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972. In support of their contentions, they 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 Advocates 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. -26- 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. 27 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 -28- 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 29 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 , 41 and 46." , 39 , 39-A 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 -30- 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. 31 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. -32- 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 33 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). Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge