JUDGMENT : P. Krishna Kumar, J. 1. Two workers who had been serving in the hostel mess of the Kerala Agricultural University approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as 'the Gratuity Act') seeking a direction to the University to pay them gratuity for the period during which they were employed in the hostel mess of the University. The Controlling Authority allowed their applications. These writ petitions are by the University, challenging the said order. The matter is before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge. 2. The factual issues in both the writ petitions are similar. The party respondent in W.P. (C) No.40562/2017 worked in the mess from 01.01.1975 to 15.09.2009. The party respondent in W.P. (C) No.10195/2018 worked in the mess from 01.01.1991 to 31.08.2005. After the said period, the University appointed them as casual labourers, taking into account their prior service as mess workers. They continued as casual labourers until superannuation, and the University paid gratuity to them for the said period. However, their claim for gratuity for the period they were employed in the hostel mess was declined. 3. Thereupon, the employees approached the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act. The authority accepted their claim and directed the University to pay the gratuity for the said period. The order is under challenge in these writ petitions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 5. The contention of the University is that there is no employer-employee relationship between the University and the respective respondents. The mess is not run by the University but by the “mess committee” constituted by the students. Their appointment and payment of salary were made by the committee. The payment was from a “mess fund” collected by the mess committee from the inmates. Therefore, they are not the employees of the University. Thus, the University has no liability to pay gratuity to the respondents, it is argued. 6. The respective respondents, on the other hand, contend that the hostel is under the control of the University and the University is the ultimate controlling authority. The University is the real employer and is liable to pay gratuity, it is claimed. 7. The hostel is run under the “RULES FOR HOSTELS ATTACHED TO THE COLLEGES/INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE UNIVERSITY”. 6. The respective respondents, on the other hand, contend that the hostel is under the control of the University and the University is the ultimate controlling authority. The University is the real employer and is liable to pay gratuity, it is claimed. 7. The hostel is run under the “RULES FOR HOSTELS ATTACHED TO THE COLLEGES/INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE UNIVERSITY”. A Division Bench of this Court in Sathikumar P. v. The Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University (W.A. No. 1255/1994), while considering the question whether the employees of the hostel are entitled to apply for selection for training as Livestock Assistants under the University, held that the workers in the mess were not employees or labourers of the University. Relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the University submitted that the claim of the respondents as against the University is only to be turned down. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in Warden, College of Horticulture v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (W.P. (C) No. 23586/2005). The question therein was whether the University was liable to pay the provident fund contribution for the mess workers. It was answered in favour of the worker. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital v. State of U.P. and Others , (2000) 7 SCC 109 , wherein, the Apex Court, on considering a somewhat similar Rules held the cafeteria workers of Gobind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology to be entitled to claim regularisation of service under the University. Therefore, the authority was right in having upheld the liability of the University for payment of gratuity, it is argued. 9. The learned single Judge before whom these writ petitions came up for consideration was of the opinion that the judgment of the Apex Court was on a different set of Rules and that there is apparent conflict in the view adopted in Warden, College of Horticulture v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner , and Sathikumar P. v. The Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University. This led to the reference. This led to the reference. The learned single Judge formulated the following questions in the reference order: (a) Whether the judgment of this Court in WP (C) No.23586/2005 dated 26.5.2016 (Warden, College of Horticulture v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner) lays down the correct proposition of law in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Sathikumar P and others vs. Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University and another [W.A. No. 1225 of 1994]? (b) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in Sathikumar P and others vs. Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University and another, W.A. No. 1225 of 1994 requires reconsideration in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital v. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 109 ? (c) Whether the Hostel Mess Rules framed by the Kerala Agriculture University do have a statutory flavour or the same is merely an administrative instruction? 10. Firstly, we proceed to understand the judgment of the Apex Court in G.B. Pant University ’s case. In that case, the University maintained a cafeteria to provide food to the inmates of the university's hostel and others. A “food committee” consisting of students managed and controlled the cafeteria. The appointments were not in accordance with the University Act, Statute, or any Rules framed thereunder. There was no budgetary allocation to meet the expenses, including the salaries of the mess employees. 11. The Apex Court took note of the various provisions in the Regulations framed under the U.P. Agricultural University Act, which explicitly stipulated overall control and supervision by the University. It was held that the legal responsibility cannot be shifted to the students. It was noticed that the Regulations providing for the involvement of students were only to ensure their participation, cooperation, and for moral, persuasive and democratic reasons. It was held that the legal responsibility cannot be shifted to the students. It was noticed that the Regulations providing for the involvement of students were only to ensure their participation, cooperation, and for moral, persuasive and democratic reasons. Some of the Regulations specifically taken note of by the Honourable Court were, the compulsory requirement of every student in the hostel to join the cafetaria unless permitted by the Chief Warden of the hostel; a separate account to be maintained to be operated by the Comptroller of the University, the staff work under the direct supervision of the Warden or Assistant Warden, although they also follow the advice of the student food committee the appointments and termination of service of the staff were to be dealt with by the Chief Warden on consultation with the “Food Committee”, though the appointments were made by the “Food Committee” with the approval of the Chief Warden. The Honourable Court observed: “The situation is rather awesome and deplorable - the University by compulsion directs students to be residents of the hostel with a definite ban on having food from outside agencies excepting under special circumstances and the provider of food, namely the staff of the cafeteria ought not to be treated as an employee of the University - whose employees are they if we may ask and we think it would not be impertinent on our part to ask the same - is it the consumer of food? Since when the consumer of food becomes the employer?” After evaluating the above factors, the Apex Court concluded that the cafteria employees are to be considered as employees of the University. 12. In Warden, College of Horticulture v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the question involved was whether the University was liable to pay Employees Provident Fund contributions of the workers in the mess of the University. 12. In Warden, College of Horticulture v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the question involved was whether the University was liable to pay Employees Provident Fund contributions of the workers in the mess of the University. This Court referred to the Hostel Rules in present case, and noted the meaning of the terms “employee” and “employer” under Section 2(f) and 2(i)(e) of the Employees Provident fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act viz., the term ‘employee’ includes any person who is employed in connection with the work of an establishment directly or indirectly by the employer (including through a contractor) and that the term ‘employer’ is defined to mean a person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment and found that the University was bound to make contributions. 13. In Sathikumar P. v. The Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University, the Hostel Rules in the present case was under consideration. The question that arose for determination there was whether the employees of the hostel belonging to the Kerala Agricultural University were entitled to apply for selection for training as Livestock Assistants under the University. After referring to the Hostel Rules framed by the Kerala Agricultural University, the Division Bench found that workers in the mess were not employees or labourers of the Agricultural University and thus they were not entitled to apply for selection for training as Livestock Assistants. 14. From the above discussion, it is evident that the subject of consideration in Warden, College of Horticulture v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and in Sathikumar P. v. The Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University was under different statutes, and the scope of the litigation was also different. We find that there is no conflict between the two judgments. 15. With regard to the conflict between Sathikumar P. and others Vs. Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University and G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital v. State of U.P. (supra), the said issue does not arise for consideration, as there is no claim before us for the regularisation of the service of any mess employee. 16. Now, we proceed to the facts of the present case. The respondents were employed as mess workers in the hostel, and their term of employment is not in dispute. The only challenge raised is regarding the liability of the University to pay gratuity. 16. Now, we proceed to the facts of the present case. The respondents were employed as mess workers in the hostel, and their term of employment is not in dispute. The only challenge raised is regarding the liability of the University to pay gratuity. The contention is that the University is not the employer and hence is not liable. 17. To resolve the issue, it is necessary to advert to certain provisions of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, 1971 (the Act) and the Hostel Rules. Section 56 of the Act requires that students shall reside in the hostel. The Section reads thus: 56. Residence of students : Students shall reside in accommodations maintained by the University or which have been approved by the Director of Students Welfare, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Chapter VIII of the Agricultural Universities Act, 1971 provides for the issuance of ‘statutes’, ‘ordinances’, ‘Regulations’ and ‘orders’ for carrying out the objectives of the said Act and for the administration of various establishments under the University. As per Section 49 of the Act, the General Council of the University can issue such Statutes with the concurrence of the Chancellor. 18. The First Statute of the Agricultural Universities prescribe the method of appointment and duties of the Hostel Manager. The duties prescribed read as follows: “ Duties (1) He shall assist the Assistant Warden of the Hostels and also the hostel committee in the day to day running of the hostel mess. (2) He shall be responsible for the proper maintenance of the Stock Registers under the charge of the Assistant Warden. (3) He shall maintain the mess registers and all related vouchers, records and files for the purchase of stores for the hostel mess. (4) He shall be responsible for the proper and timely maintenance of hostel admission register and also the register for collection of hostel rent, water and electricity charges from the inmates of the hostel. (5) He shall be responsible for the preparation of the demand, collection and balance statement (quarterly, half yearly and annual) of rent, electricity and water charges and other duties, if any, from the inmates of the hostels. (6) He shall maintain the register of Boarding and Lodging claims in respect of Schedules Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Christian convert students. (5) He shall be responsible for the preparation of the demand, collection and balance statement (quarterly, half yearly and annual) of rent, electricity and water charges and other duties, if any, from the inmates of the hostels. (6) He shall maintain the register of Boarding and Lodging claims in respect of Schedules Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Christian convert students. (7) He shall also perform any other duties relating to the hostels, under the written orders of the Warden of the hostels.” Akin to the Hostel Regulations in G.B. Pant University case, going by the Hostel Rules, though a mess committee comprising the students is managing the mess, the ultimate control and superintendence is with the University. The relevant rules are as under: “ Administration a) The hostels in each College/Institute shall be under the direct control of the respective Dean/Assoc. Dean/Head of Institution who will be the Warden. The Warden's decision shall be final in all the matters connected with the hostel. xxxx xxxx xxxx d) There shall be Resident Tutors for each hostel who shall be responsible for the maintenance of discipline in the hostel and shall assist the Assistant Warden in all his/her duties. Admission a) Admission to the hostel is ordinarily restricted to the students of Kerala Agricultural University. b) All the students should reside in the hostel unless exempted by the Dean/Assoc. Dean/Head of Institution on the ground that they are residing with their parents or guardians. c) The Warden may permit members of the staff of the University or trainees or part-time students also to reside in hostels, if accommodation is available, as special cases. d) Application for admission to the hostels in the prescribed form (Annexure) shall be submitted to the Assistant Warden. The Warden will have the right to refuse admission to any applicant without assigning reasons. Hostel Mess a) The mess may frame its own by-laws consistent with the rules and subject to the approval of the Assistant Warden . The mess by-laws once framed shall not ordinarily be altered during the courses of the year. b) All residents of the hostel must be members of the hostel mess and are required to pay a Mess advance of Rs.400 when they are admitted to the hostel. The amount so collected shall constitute the 'Mess Fund' which will be credited to the Wardens Account . b) All residents of the hostel must be members of the hostel mess and are required to pay a Mess advance of Rs.400 when they are admitted to the hostel. The amount so collected shall constitute the 'Mess Fund' which will be credited to the Wardens Account . The Mess fund shall be operated by the Asst. Warden. xxxx xxxx xxxx e) Day scholars, members of teaching staff and other University employees may also be permitted to use the facilities of the hostel mess with the permission of the Assistant Warden . They will have to deposit a sum of Rs.50/- as mess advance and meet other charges fixed by the Assistant Warden f) The residents of the hostel are permitted to run their own mess in the hostel on no loss no profit basis. The management of the mess shall be the responsibility of the students, subject to control of the Assistant Warden. g) The hostel mess shall be managed by a Mess Committee consisting of student representatives. The mess committee shall be elected every month by the members of the hostel . The number of the Mess Committee shall be fixed as 5 of which one shall be the Mess Secretary. The Mess committee shall hold office for a period of one month only. h) The mess account is a private account operated by the Assistant Warden and Mess Committee . The Mess Committee shall satisfy themselves with the correctness of accounting. The accounts shall be maintained by the Assistant Warden. i) The 'dividing system' shall b e followed in bearing the expenses of the Mess. All expenses including salary of cooks shall be from the mess expense for a month. The account shall be audited every month by two auditors elected every month from the inmates. j) Reduction from mess charges shall be granted to members, if they are absent from the mess for at least 3 consecutive days. The request for reduction must be given to the Asst. Warden in writing before the members leave the Hostel. The rates of reduction shall be: ….... Mess servants a) The mess committee shall be the appointing authority for hostel mess servants subject to the approval of the Warden on the recommendations of the Assistant Warden . The terms and conditions may be as laid down by the mess committee from time to time. The rates of reduction shall be: ….... Mess servants a) The mess committee shall be the appointing authority for hostel mess servants subject to the approval of the Warden on the recommendations of the Assistant Warden . The terms and conditions may be as laid down by the mess committee from time to time. The term of appointment of all mess servants shall not exceed one academic year that is from the reopening of the college/institution to the closure of the College/Institution after the University examinations. The mess servants shall remain automatically discharged from service at the time of annual closure of the College/Institution. b) The Assistant Warden shall be responsible for the maintenance of proper discipline and good conduct among the mess servants . The Mess Committee shall be competent to recommend punishment including suspension or removal from service of any Mess Servant, with reasons thereof. Such disciplinary action against mess servants shall be recommended by the Asst. Warden of the concerned hostel to Warden for further action. The Warden shall be the disciplinary authority in all such cases Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 12 the Warden shall be competent to discharge all or any of mess servants if he is satisfied that the discipline, cleanliness and/or conduct of the mess servants are not satisfactory or if their continuance in the hostel mess is considered injurious to the interest of the students, the hostel or the college or institute (as amended vide order No.Acd A3-42966/81 dt. 10-11-81. Hostel Committee xxxx xxxx xxxx The Warden and the Assistant Warden shall be President and Vice-President respectively of the Committee. (Emphasis supplied) The rules as above indicate the overall control of the University over the hostel and the mess. The appointment or termination of a mess worker is to be made with the approval of the Warden. The role of the mess committee is only recommendatory. The life of a mess committee is only for one month. The strength of the hostel inmates and the mess consumers may vary. But the workers are entitled to their wages and statutory benefits. The Hostel Rules provide for the grant of a rebate during the period of absence of an inmate. All these cannot affect the statutory rights of the mess worker. The Hostel Rules reveal the ultimate control of the University over the hostel and the mess. But the workers are entitled to their wages and statutory benefits. The Hostel Rules provide for the grant of a rebate during the period of absence of an inmate. All these cannot affect the statutory rights of the mess worker. The Hostel Rules reveal the ultimate control of the University over the hostel and the mess. The duties of the Hostel Manager as prescribed under the First Statute have already been noted. This has much similarity to the Regulations in G.B.Pant University case. 19. Now we may advert to the specific statutory scheme of the Gratuity Act. As per Section 2(e) of the said Act, a person who is employed for wages in any kind of work in connection with the work of an establishment to which the said Act applies is an ‘employee’, whether or not the terms of employment are express or implied, if the employment is for any kind of work in connection with the work of the establishment. There is no dispute that the said Act applies to the petitioner University. As per Section 2(f), a person can be said to be the ‘employer’ if he has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment. If we read Sections 4, 7 and 9 of the said Act together, it is evident that the purpose of the said definition is to fix the liability on the employer i.e., the person in ultimate control over the affairs of a particular establishment, to pay the gratuity of an employee viz., a person who is employed for wages whether or not the terms of employment are express or implied when the employment is for any kind of work in connection with the work of the establishment. 20. The Gratuity Act being a beneficial legislation, its provisions should be construed liberally and in such a manner to uphold the objectives of the Act. The above provisions in the said Act cast a burden on the person having ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment to pay the gratuity to the worker. 21. The Warden appointed by the University alone can appoint the mess workers, based on the recommendation of the Assistant Warden. The disciplinary authority of the mess staff is also the Warden. 21. The Warden appointed by the University alone can appoint the mess workers, based on the recommendation of the Assistant Warden. The disciplinary authority of the mess staff is also the Warden. Significantly, the Rule further states that the Assistant Warden, who is appointed by the Dean/Head of the Institution from among the academic staff of the college [see Rule 2(b)], is responsible for the general control and management of the hostel mess. He is also responsible for maintaining the account of the mess and collection, and operation of the mess fund. In the above circumstance, if the mess workers are entitled to get gratuity under the said Act, it cannot be said that the University has no liability to pay the gratuity amount due to the workers of the mess. The Warden or the Assistant Warden or such other authority who was in the ultimate control of the hostel messes could have maintained the no profit-no loss account of the Mess Fund in such a manner so as to meet the amount necessary to pay the gratuity to such mess workers, if they are entitled to get it. The Mess Committee, comprising only the students’ representatives, is only a fluctuating body having the life span of just one month [Rule 10(g) of the Rules]. If we take a stand that such a fluctuating body would be the employer of the mess workers who are responsible for paying the gratuity, it would fly in the face of the very objective of the Gratuity Act. 22. Coming to the question regarding statutory flavour for the Hostel Rules, we are of the opinion that it has practically no significance in the case at hand. Admittedly, the hostel and the mess were functional during the relevant period in accordance with the Hostel Rules. The Hostel Rules gave the University comprehensive control over the hostel and the mess. At any rate, we have already noted the relevant provisions under the Agricultural Universities Act, 1971, which provides for the issuance of ‘statutes’, ‘ordinances’, ‘Regulations’ and ‘orders’ for carrying out the objectives of the said Act and for the administration of various establishments under the University. The provisions of the First Statute of the University and the said Rules complement each other. 23. The provisions of the First Statute of the University and the said Rules complement each other. 23. Taking cue from the judgment of the Apex Court in G.B. Pant University case, and having due regard to the provisions of the first Statute and the relevant Hostel Rules of the University, we hold that the University is deemed to be the employer of the mess workers, as far as the liability to pay gratuity is concerned. We concur with the Controlling Authority in having held so. We are also mindful of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, that the University discontinued the practice of engaging mess workers through the Mess Committee quite some time back, and that all such mess workers, including the petitioners herein, have attained the age of superannuation. 24. On the above discussion, the writ petitions are bound to fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.