JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The petitioner company has been asked by the Appellate Court to pay gratuity to the respondent No. 3 in accordance with the Government Order dated 31-10-1974. It appears that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued a Government Order No. 5959 (N. I.)/XXXVI/3-101 (S. I.)-74 dated 31st October, 1974. Clause 9 of the said Government Order reads as under : "9. (i) Gratuity to the workmen of the Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in the State shall be payable at the following rates : (a) the permanent workmen : 15 days consolidated wages based on the wage last drawn for every completed year of Service of part thereof in excess of six months ; (b) to seasonal workmen : 7 days consolidated wages based on wage last drawn. (ii) Gratuity at the above rates shall be paid to workmen who ratire after September 30, 1974 or who retired after September 16, 1972, but whose claims of gratuity have not been finally settled." 2. The petitioner company seems to have contested the claim but it was unsuccessful before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Thereafter it preferred an appeal. That appeal was also dismissed and it has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority where it has been directed to pay gratuity to the respondent No. 3 in accordance with the said Government Order. 3. The petitioner's case is that the respondent No. 3 was employed as Assistant Engineer in the petitioner's concern with effect from 16-12-1954. He is said to have attained the age of retirement on 31-1-1973 but the was allowed to work up to 4-4-1973 after rendering service of 18 years, 3 months and 19 days, in the petitioner company. His last drawn pay on 4-4-1973 was Rs. 783,75 per month. The respondent's gratuity calculated on this date and was paid at the rate of 7 days for every completed year of service as provided under Section 4 (2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'). A sum of Rs. 3291.84 was paid to him on 7-5-1973. The petitioner company is a seasonal establishment because it work for 120 days only in a year i. e from December to March. A sum of Rs. 3291.84 was paid to him on 7-5-1973. The petitioner company is a seasonal establishment because it work for 120 days only in a year i. e from December to March. The expression 'seasonal' is not defined in the Act or Clause A (5) of the Standing Order enforced by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories by a Government Order under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 4. On the basis of Government Order the respondent No. 3 is said to have filed an application on 29-10-1975 under Section 10 of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the Controlling Authority, respondent; No. 1, for payment of Rs. 7,053. 75 claiming gratuity at the rata of 15 days for every completed year of Service. The application was allowed by the Controlling Authority on 15-10-1976 holding him entitled to get gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages for every completed year of service under the Government Order of 31st October, 1974. The petitioner is said to have filed an appeal before the Additional Labour Commissioner, who was designated as the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was dismissed on 9-1 l-l978, the information where of was given to the petitioner on 5-1-1979. 5. The petitioner challenges the Government Order on so many grounds. The main grounds of challenge are that the State Government has no authority to issue any notification regarding the matters covered by the said Act, the notification dated 31-10-1974 is ultra vires, and the notification is purported to have been issued under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. There was no material before the State Government for forming requisite opinion required by Section 3 (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The State Government has no power to amend or add or very any provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by exercising powers under subordinate legislation i. e. by notification under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Clause 9 of the said Government Order is said to be repugnant to the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act. The power under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act could not he exercised retrospectively. The respondents Nos. Clause 9 of the said Government Order is said to be repugnant to the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act. The power under Section 3 (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act could not he exercised retrospectively. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are said to have no jurisdiction to entertain the application after expiry of three months or condone the delay in filing the said application. 6. In the counter-affidavit the respondent No. 3 has stated that he is entitled to gratuity under the Central Act at the rate of 15 days for each completed year of service. The respondent No. 3 relies on the Government Order dated 31-10-1974, which is said to be a valid one. Rejoinder-affidavit is also on the record which asserts the pleas raised in the writ petition and refutes the averments of the counter-affidavit. 7. Mr. Tewari appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the rate of gratuity payable to a retired employee cannot be enhanced or scheduled by a Government Order. It is stated that the State Government has no authority to amend or vary the terms of the Act which is made by the Parliament at the Centre, as a result of which the impugned notification dated 31-10-1974 is said to be without jurisdiction. The rule making power can be exercised by the State Government but that is entirely a different power and to exercise the said power a different procedure is required to be followed. 3y a Government Order no correction or addition can be made in the enactment made by the Parliament nor can the Government Order dated 31-10-1974. The said to be the same as rule made under the Act. The impugned Government Order dated 31-10-1974 has the effect of amending Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. For an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not employed throughout a year, the employer has to pay gratuity at the rate of 7 days wages for each season. For other employees i. e., permanent monthly rate employees, gratuity is paid at the rate of 15 days wages for each completed year. 8. The statute has fixed the rate and mode of payment or gratuity to an employees of the establishment which cannot be carried or amended by the State Government notification. For other employees i. e., permanent monthly rate employees, gratuity is paid at the rate of 15 days wages for each completed year. 8. The statute has fixed the rate and mode of payment or gratuity to an employees of the establishment which cannot be carried or amended by the State Government notification. The said notification may be effective only to supplement the State enactments but the Government Orders issued by the State cannot alter the statutory position in respect of laws which are framed by the Parliament. 9. In my opinion, the contention raised by Mr. Tewari has substance. The Government Order dated 31-10-1974 is issued by the State Government. The enactment known as 'Payment of Gratuity Act' is enacted by the Parliament and Section 4 of the Act deals with the rate and mode of payment of gratuity to an employee who has worked on permanent basis or who is an employees of seasonal establishment. In either case the Government Order issued by the Government will not amend the Statute and Section 4 of the Act cannot be amended or altered by the State Government notification. Under Section 15 of the Act the appropriate Government can frame rules or notifications for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the Act. Every rule so framed by the Central Government under the Act was to be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session, Therefore, the Government Order dated 31-10-1974 cannot be treated as a rule framed under the Act. 10. The petitioner's contention that its establishment is a seasonal establishment cannot be doubted. 11. The petitioner's establishment is engaged in sugarcane crushing which engagement does not last full year. It is a seasonal work which is to last for the period when the sugarcane is available. Therefore, the workman of seasonal establishment like the petitioner is entitled to get gratuity to the calculated at the rate of 7 days wages for each working season. 12. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 9-11-1978 passed by the Appellate Authority in appeal No. 15 of 1977 contained in Annexure IX to the Writ petition is hereby quased.