Bhilai Steel Plant vs Shri Mathew Jacob on 27 February, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Bhilai Steel Plant vs Shri Mathew Jacob on 27 February, 2025

                                      1




             Digitally
             signed by
    REKHA REKHA
          Date:
                 SINGH

    SINGH 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

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 :
-10-

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

— Respondent(s)

with

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

—- Respondents

For Petitioner/Bhilai Steel Plant : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior
Advocate along with
Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate
-14-

For Respondents : 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

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, 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
-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).

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha