JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.5004 to 5006 of 2017, dated 05.02.2018, respectively.) Common Judgment 1. These three Writ Appeals are by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, aggrieved over the dismissal of its writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.5004 to 5006 of 2017, dated 05.02.2018, respectively, in which, the order of the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was challenged. 2. The third respondent / workmen approached the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, seeking payment of gratuity. 3. According to the third respondent / workmen, they are entitled to gratuity for the entire period of service rendered by them which are as follows: 1. W.P.(MD) No. 5004/2017 : Date of appointment/ regularization -29.04.1999. : Date of retirement -30.06.2012. : Gratuity claimed from 1975 as contract labourer : Petition allowed for the service period + 10 years’ service prior to the date of appointment as per the appointment order. 2. W.P.(MD) No. 5005/2017 : Date of appointment/ regularization -29.04.1999. : Date of retirement -30.06.2012. : Gratuity paid Rs.58,938/- Gratuity claimed from 01.04.1975 as contract labourer. : Petition allowed for the service period + 10 years service prior to the date of appointment as per the appointment order. 3. W.P.(MD) No. 5006/2017 : Date of appointment/ regularization -29.04.1999. : Date of retirement -30.06.2011. : Gratuity paid Rs.56,322/- Gratuity claimed from 01.04.1975 as contract labourer. : Petition allowed for the service period + 10 years’ service prior to the date of appointment as per the appointment order. 4. The appellant Corporation resisted the said claim contending that the nature of the employment of the workmen being seasonal, they cannot claim gratuity for the entire period of service and they would be entitled to gratuity only from the date of their regularization in the year 1999. 5. The authority, however, took note of the fact that the appellant Corporation has admitted that the workmen had worked with the Corporation at least for 10 years prior to the regularization, had taken the total length of service from the date of regularization, till date of retirement and added 10 years of service to that. The authority, therefore, directed payment of gratuity for a period of 23 years. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed Appeals before the appellate authority. The authority, therefore, directed payment of gratuity for a period of 23 years. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed Appeals before the appellate authority. The appellate authority confirmed the orders of the original authority. The Corporation moved this Court in Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.5004 to 5006 of 2017, challenging the orders of the appellate authority. 6. The Writ Court, upon consideration of the entire material, came to the conclusion that the workmen were regularized on the basis that they have put in service of 10 years prior to their regularization and therefore, the said 10 years of service should be taken as a regular service in determining the gratuity payable. The Writ Court adverted to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and concluded that the employee would be entitled to payment of gratuity for the period they had worked and the nature of the employment whether it is temporary or permanent does not matter. If the employee is shown to have worked continuously for the period covered under Section 4 of the Act, then the employee would be entitled to payment of gratuity. On the above conclusion, the Writ Court upheld the orders of the authorities under the Act and dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, these Writ appeals. 7. We have heard Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation and Mr.J.K.Jeyasingh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 8. Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation would vehemently contend that the authorities and the Writ Court were not justified in including the temporary service rendered for payment of gratuity. 9. We are unable to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel, in the light of the provisions of the Act The Act does not make a difference between a permanent employee or temporary employee. 10. It is an admitted fact that the workmen were regularized on the basis that they have rendered 10 years of continuous service in the Corporation. The Payment of Gratuity Act is a piece of Social Welfare legislation and the same has to be interpreted to the benefit of the workmen. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association Vs. The Payment of Gratuity Act is a piece of Social Welfare legislation and the same has to be interpreted to the benefit of the workmen. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association Vs. Administrative Officer and Others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1426 has held that the provisions of the Act are in the nature of the social security and therefore, the interpretation should be a purposive and inclusive interpretation so as to extend the benefit to all the employees. Once the fact that the employees had worked for 10 years before regularization is admitted, the appellant Corporation cannot escape from its liability to pay gratuity for the said period also. 11. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these Writ Appeals and the Writ Appeals fail and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.