Simadri Dalai S/o Late Lakhan Dalai, Aged About 68 Years Ex Attendant, Phed Department v. 1 Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34368-DB NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.22 12:38:48 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 497 of 2025 Simadri Dalai S/o Late Lakhan Dalai, Aged About 68 Years Ex Attendant, Phed Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai R/o Qtr, No. 2/r, Street No. 31, Sector 1, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 Appellate Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act. 1972 And Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 Controlling Authority, Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act. 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble
Legal Reasoning
Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21.07.2025 1. The appellant/respondent No.1 in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPL No. 73 of 2020, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned writ Court. 2. (a) The brief facts as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner before inducted on the role of Bhilai steel plant as Attendant on 01/11/2009 was working in PM worker co-operative canteen of BSP through co-operative society. In the year 1992 a Union namely Hindustan Steel Employees Union moved to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and filled M.P. No. 2041/1992 who passed the order dated 12/12/1995 that the canteen workers have been declared to the status of workers of Bhilai Steel Plant. Against such order dated 12/12/1995 the Employer filed Letters Patent Appeal L.P.A. No. 208/95 before Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein order dated 15/04/1996 was passed and it was held that the workers deployed through the co-operative society in the statutory canteens of Bhilai Steel Plant were held as workers of Bhilai Steel 3 Plant/Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). (b) Thereafter, a special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 10687/96 was filed by the Employer before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of MP. The President of Co-operative societies filed Special Leave Petition (Civil No. 12423/1996) and the employee through Union has also filed Special Leave Petition (Civil. No. 21220/1996) before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter of canteen workers were also decided by an award dated 06/02/2003 by the Industrial Court and held that statutory canteen employees were entitled to all the benefits admissible to regular employees of Bhilai Steel Plant, in the mean time on 20/10/2004 a memorandum of settlement was arrived between the management of Bhilai Steel Plant and Steel Workers Union, the representative of above canteen workers on the rolls of statutory and non-statutory Co-operative 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. Further, the Employer issued offer of appointment letter no. Esst./Rectt./2009/647 31/10/2009 to the workers of statutory and non-statutory canteens and inducted on roll of Bhilai Steel Plant w.e.f. 01/11/2009. (c) In the meanwhile, being aggrieved by the award passed by the industrial court the Respondent No. I moved to the High Court 4 through W.P. No. 1498 of 2003. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 29/09/2005 quashed the award dated 06/02/2003 which was challenged by the Appellant Employee through its Union HSEU through filing S.P.L. (Civil) No. 23774 of 2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, a settlement dated 20/10/2004 was arrived between the Employer Bhilai Steel Plant and the Appellant Employees Union Steel Workers Union. In the settlement it was agreed by the Bhilai Steel Plant that the canteen workers on the rolls statutory cooperative canteens will be considered for induction in BSP subject to medical fitness. The workers non-statutory canteens will be placed as NMR for a period of 2 years and thereafter they will be considered for induction and appointment order were issued to the employees as per the terms of the settlement with retrospective seniority from 20/10/2006. The appellant were paid gratuity by the cooperative society of canteen for the period they worked in the canteen from onward 1st January 1977 to 2006 and the Respondent No. 1 paid the gratuity from 2006 onwards. On account of the settlement arrived in 2004 that accepts the workers under the settlement are canteen workers of BSP. The workers on the role of Statutory canteen have already declared workers of the BSP by the M.P. High Court and that position cannot be compromised later on. The settlement admits that canteen workers both statutory and non-statutory were in existence in 5 employment in the Bhilai Steel Plant. Prior to settlement it do not at all speak in respect of separation from employment and they were working in the canteen of Bhilai Steel Plant is obvious because they were represented by Steel workers Union and other party management was represented by Higher Official of the Bhilai Steel Plant. Even though the High Court of MP passed the order in favor of the canteen workers, as well as industrial court and settlement was also arrived in favor of employees still it was not implemented by the employer, the gratuity is in its essence in payment in consideration of past service made only at the end of the said service when the employment terminates. The Appellant had filed an application under section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the controlling authority for grant of gratuity after his superannuation which was allowed by the controlling authority. Subsequent to passing of the said order the respondent no. 1 approached the appellant authority, the deputy commissioner however he also maintained the order passed by the controlling authority. Thereafter writ jurisdiction was invoked and a writ petition was filed before the Single Bench of this Court. This Court allowed the petition and reversed the orders of authority concerned, which is now being challenged by the employee by way of this Writ Appeal. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has 6 observed as under:- 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
Decision
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 7 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 8 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. 12 in my opinion, the canteen workers would be entitled to claim parity at par with the employees of the 9 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 10 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).” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the same plea which has been taken before the learned Single Judge and challenging the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in WPL No. 73 of 2020 and praying that the balance amount of gratuity along with 10% S.I. be paid to the petitioner herein as the petitioner worked under the Cooperative Societies and thereafter with the Bhilai Steel Plant, therefore he is entitled to get the benefit of gratuity for the completion of every year of service. 5. Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Canteen worker submit that a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has already held that the canteen workers would be entitled to get all benefits which were available 11 to the Bhilai Steel Plant employees and that order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He 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 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. 6. 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 12 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 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 their contentions, they placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Netram Sahu Vs. State of C.G. and Anr. Reported in (2018) 5 SCC 430. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available in the record. 8. Bare perusal of the records show that 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 fresh appointment orders without raising any objections. The canteen workers also accepted the 13 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. 9. Further, 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. It is admitted position that 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. 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. There was no reason or occasion for the canteen workers to move applications for payment of gratuity when it was finally paid by the BSP and accepted by employees. Further, the canteen workers also accepted the settlement arrived at 14 between the parties on 20.10.2004 and the fresh orders of appointments pursuance to the settlement between them. 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. 10. Further, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner Netram Sahu Vs. State of C.G. (supra) is not applicable in this case, as in the present case the appellants who are employees of canteen subsequently appointed by the BSP on the basis of the settlement arrived between them by issuance of fresh appointment orders. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, we are of the view that the order passed by learned single judge is just and proper and needs no interference. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Gowri