JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. I.A. No. 10558 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 31 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 31 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 10558 of 2019 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 766 of 2019 5. The instant intra-Court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 29th August, 2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No. 6579 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority in P.G.A. No. (51) / 2015-DY.CLC, has been declined to be interfered with. 6. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated read as under : The Respondent No.2-workman was working under the appellant Management and while in service he along with 52 other workmen had raised a dispute for their regular employment being Reference No. 48/1982 wherein reference was to the effect “Whether the demand of the workmen of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.O. Saraidhela, District – Dhanbad for regular employment to Sri Birendra Basphore and 53 others Sweepers under the Management is justified ? If so, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled”. The reference was answered by way of an Award passed on 07.09.1982 wherein the Tribunal held that “under the circumstances the demand of the workmen of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., P.O. – Saraidhela, Karmik Bhawan, District – Dhanbad for regular employment to Sri Birendra Basphore and 53 other sweepers (listed in the schedule) is justified. They should be, therefore, regularized in service w.e.f. 20.06.1981 when they were stopped from working. They will be further entitled to their wages and other emoluments for the idle period”. They should be, therefore, regularized in service w.e.f. 20.06.1981 when they were stopped from working. They will be further entitled to their wages and other emoluments for the idle period”. The Award passed by the Tribunal in connection with Reference No. 48 of 1982 was challenged before the Ranchi Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court, as then it was, vide C.W.J.C. No. 85 of 1984(R) which was disposed of by order dated 09.05.1988 whereby and whereunder the Award was refused to be interfered with and direction was given to the appellant Management to reinstate the workmen. The appellant-management constituted a Screening Committee for identification of the workmen but the Respondent No.2-workman as well as some other workmen were declared unidentified by the Screening Committee. The Respondent No.2-workman along with others who were declared to be unidentified by the Screening Committee, questioned the aforesaid decision by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 833 of 1994 (R) and vide order dated 07.09.1995 the Tribunal was directed to identify the workmen. The order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 833 of 1994 (R) was challenged in intra-Court appeal being L.P.A. No. 131 of 1998(R) which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.1999 whereby and whereunder the following direction was given :- “In view of the fact that the Tribunal had a very limited scope to verify the persons except oral evidence and documents filed by respective parties on the ratio of decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vrs. Raghunath Balmiki (1991) 1 SCC 177, the parties agree that by way of abundant caution the worker concerned shall obtain the relevant performa from the management within a week and submit the same within a week thereafter with certificate of birth and thereafter within a month service of those workmen shall be regularized and their wages w.e.f. 20.06.1981 and other emoluments as per the award as well as the impugned order dated 19.3.1998 passed by this Court for idle period shall be calculated and paid by the management. However, they shall not be entitled to any interest. Accordingly, direction for payment of 9% interest given in the impugned order dated 19.3.1998 is set aside. However, they shall not be entitled to any interest. Accordingly, direction for payment of 9% interest given in the impugned order dated 19.3.1998 is set aside. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification and direction.” The workmen again moved to this Court by filing Civil Miscellaneous Petition being C.M.P. No.598 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.02.2002 by passing the following direction :- “(i) All the five workmen shall be reinstated. They shall report for duties on 18.2.2002 and their dues shall start from that date. From that date they shall be paid their current wages as well; (ii) Whatever documentary evidence the workmen have produced already or may additionally produce in four weeks from today with respect to their ages, the management shall consider the same and if satisfied shall record their ages accordingly. Otherwise, the management shall be at liberty to subject these workmen to examination by a medical board and the medical board shall record its assessment of their ages, which shall be duly entered in their service record; and (iii) The management has submitted before us that because of economic crunch it is not in a position to pay the back wages and the matter has been taken up with the BIFR, it is up to the management to obtain any appropriate order from the BIFR but in the meanwhile by way of interim measure each of the five workmen shall be paid Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand). This amount shall be paid latest by 28.2.2002.” The Respondent No.2-workman joined the services of the appellant Management on 18.02.2002 in terms of the order dated 13.02.2002 passed in C.M.P. No. 598 of 2001 and discharged his duty till the date of superannuation i.e., till 31.10.2012. The Respondent No.2-workman was not paid the amount of gratuity from the date of regularization i.e., with effect from 20.06.1981 as per the Award passed answering the reference which led the Respondent No.2-workman to approach to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by filing Application No. 36/(18)/2013.E.6 but the Controlling Authority vide order dated 14.08.2015 declined to interfere with the decision of the management deciding the claim of gratuity from 19.02.2002 denying the same with effect from 10.03.1978. The Respondent No.2-workman then preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad being PGA No. (51)/2015-DY.CLC which was decided on 22.01.2016 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 14.08.2015 was reversed by allowing the appeal holding the Respondent No.2-workman entitled for payment of gratuity with effect from the date of regularization i.e., October, 1978. The appellant management challenged the aforesaid order by invoking the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.(L) No.6579 of 2016 and the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to interfere with the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority in PGA No. (51)/2015-DY.CLC against which the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted by taking the ground that the Respondent No.2-workman has not yet vacated the quarter even though he has superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation and hence the amount of gratuity is adjustable with the rent in lieu of occupation of the quarter. 8. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I., appearing for the Respondent No.1, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in passing the order by holding the entitlement of the Respondent No.2-workman from the date of his regularization as per the Award passed in Reference No. 48/1982. Hence, the same requires no interference by this Court. 9. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions advanced on their behalf as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, deems it fit and proper to first deal with the legal position as contained under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1972). It is not in dispute that the Act, 1972 has been enacted to provide for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The reason for enactment of the said Act was felt in order to regulate the payment of gratuity to industrial workers. The reason for enactment of the said Act was felt in order to regulate the payment of gratuity to industrial workers. The Act, 1972 contains a provision under Section 4 under the caption “Payment of Gratuity” as per which the 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 – (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease, provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement. It is thus evident that the gratuity is to be paid to an employee who has rendered continuous service for not less than five years on his superannuation, or on his retirement or resignation, or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. It is further evident that save and except the provision as contained under Section 4, there is no other provision for withholding the amount of gratuity, meaning thereby, if an employee complies with the condition of rendering service not less than five years, he will be entitled to get the amount of gratuity on his superannuation, or on his retirement or resignation, or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. The reference of the aforesaid provision of the Act, 1972 has been required to be made herein in order to answer the issue raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Management about adjustment of the rent for keeping the quarter in possession by the Respondent No.2-workman from the amount of gratuity. But, in absence of any provision under the Act, 1972, no such direction for adjustment of the rental amount will be appropriate to be passed. Learned counsel for the appellant has also fairly acceded that save and except the Act, 1972, no other scheme or Act parallel to the Act, 1972, is applicable to the employees of the appellant Management. But, in absence of any provision under the Act, 1972, no such direction for adjustment of the rental amount will be appropriate to be passed. Learned counsel for the appellant has also fairly acceded that save and except the Act, 1972, no other scheme or Act parallel to the Act, 1972, is applicable to the employees of the appellant Management. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in absence of any provision under the Act, 1972, no such direction for adjustment of the amount for keeping the quarter, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, can be passed and therefore, the aforesaid ground, according to us, is of no substance and accordingly rejected. 10. Admittedly herein, the Respondent No.2-workman along with 52 workers were not working under the regular establishment of the appellant Management and, therefore, a dispute was raised for regularizing them in service which was numbered as Reference Case No. 48/1982 which was answered by Award dated 07.09.1982 whereby and whereunder the Award of regularization was passed with effect from 20.06.1981. The Award passed in the aforesaid reference case was challenged by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 85 of 1984(R) which was disposed of vide order dated 09.05.1988 with a direction upon the Management to reinstate the workmen in pursuance to the aforesaid Award. However, the Award was not implemented so far as it relates to the Respondent No.2-workman and some other workmen due to the issue of identification by the Screening Committee. Ultimately, the matter was settled and the Respondent No.2-workman was treated to be regularized in service with effect from 20.06.1981. The Respondent No.2-workman retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.10.2012 but the appellant Management has only paid an amount of Rs. 1,48,748/- towards gratuity counting it from 19.02.2002 leaving the period from which the Award for regularization i.e., with effect from 20.06.1981 which led the Respondent No.2-workman to approach before the Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972 but the Controlling Authority declined to accede to the grievance of the Respondent No.2-workman on the ground that no documents were produced in support of the fact that the Respondent No.2-workman was regularized with effect from 20.06.1981 and the decision of the Authority holding the Respondent No.2-workman entitled for gratuity with effect from 19.02.2002 till the date of superannuation was held to be justified. The Respondent No.2-workman filed appeal against the aforesaid order and the Appellate authority reversed the order passed by the Controlling Authority taking into consideration the Award of regularization with effect from 20.06.1981 with a direction to make payment of the differential amount of the gratuity by counting it from 20.06.1981 i.e. the date of regularization as has been held in Reference Case No. 48/1982. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 6579 of 2016 but the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, 1972 which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 11. The question herein is as to whether the Respondent No.2-workman would be entitled for the amount of gratuity with effect from 19.02.2002 or with effect from the date of regularization i.e., 20.06.1981. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.2-workman was regularized by way of an Award with effect from 20.06.1981. The aforesaid Award was confirmed by this Court under the writ jurisdiction in an order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 85 of 1984 (R) and in terms of the order passed by this Court in judicial proceedings, the Respondent No.2-workman was regularized in service from 20.06.1981 as per the Award. These admitted fact suggests that the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal with respect to the Reference Case No. 48/1982 has attained finality. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No.2-workman was not discharging his duty as nothing has been averred in the paper book either before the writ court or before this Court, meaning thereby, the Respondent No.2-workman was working in the daily rated capacity and the day he was regularized by enforcement of the Award, he will be treated to be in regular establishment of the appellant Management with effect from 20.06.1981. 12. 12. The Controlling Authority in not considering the fact about the regularization with effect from 20.06.1981, as has been awarded in Reference Case No. 48/1982, according to our considered view, has committed gross illegality for the reason that if the reasoning of the Controlling Authority would be accepted, the normal consequence would be to discard the Award passed in the reference case and once the Award has attained its finality, it would be enforceable within the meaning of Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and once it is enforceable, the workmen in whose favour Award has been passed, would be legally entitled for service benefits in terms of the aforesaid Award but the Controlling Authority has not considered this aspect of the matter, however, the same has been considered by the Appellate Authority and rightly so, since the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the binding nature of the Award in view of Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and once the Respondent No.2-workman has been directed to be regularized by way of said Award, he will be deemed to be in regular establishment with effect from 20.06.1981. 13. The further question would be as to whether the Respondent No.2-workman has been able to show about compliance of the conditions mentioned under Section 4 of the Act, 1972 or not? It has been provided under Section 4 that the condition for entitlement to get the amount of gratuity is continuous service for a period not less than five years on his superannuation, or on his retirement or resignation, or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. It has been provided under Section 4 that the condition for entitlement to get the amount of gratuity is continuous service for a period not less than five years on his superannuation, or on his retirement or resignation, or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. This Court has considered the mandatory conditions for entitlement to get the amount of gratuity and came to conclusive finding by taking into consideration the binding nature of Award passed in Reference Case No. 48/1982 whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.2-workman and other workmen were regularized in service with effect from 20.06.1981 and since it is not the case of the appellant Management that the Respondent No.2-workman was not working under the Management, rather he had discharged his duty in the daily rated capacity and, therefore, there is no issue of not rendering the continuous service for a period of five years as has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 1972, as such, according to our considered view, since the Respondent No.2-workman has performed his duty regularly even more than the period of five years and since he has been inducted in the regular establishment with effect from 20.06.1981 as per the Award which has attained its finality, therefore, the Respondent No.2-workman would be entitled to get the gratuity with effect from 20.06.1981. 14. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, has declined to interfere with the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority, which according to us, cannot be faulted with. 15. In view thereof and for the reason aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the order impugned requires no interference. 16. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 17. Consequently, pending I.As [I.A. No. 10559 of 2019 and I.A. No.11028 of 2019] also stand dismissed.