ORDER : (P. DHANABAL, J. ) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the 1st respondent in A.G.A. Nos.163 to 168 of 2011 dated 03.12.2012 and to quash the same. 2. According to the Writ petitioner, the petitioner is a Cooperative Sugar Mill established in the year 1964 and had 281 permanent workmen and 225 seasonal workmen. The respondents workmen were engaged as seasonal workmen. While so, the respondents workmen filed an application for payment of gratuity before the 2nd respondent in PG Case Nos.2 to 7 of 2008 claiming gratuity @ 15 days' wages for each year of service rendered by them. The workmen were employed in the Writ Petitioner's Seasonal Establishment and therefore, they are entitled for gratuity @ 7 days' wages for each season. But the 2nd respondent passed a common order dated 18.08.2010 by holding that the workmen were entitled to gratuity @ 15 days' wages for each year of service and computed the amount. Challenging the said order, the Writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent through an order dated 03.12.20212. Now the said order is under challenge through the present Writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management would submit that the respondents 3 to 8 are seasonal workmen and they were only engaged as seasonal workmen and they were not employed continuously for 240 days per year. Therefore, they are only entitled to gratuity @ 7 days wages for the seasonal service. But the respondents 1 and 2 failed to consider that the respondents 3 to 8 were engaged only as seasonal workmen and ordered to pay the gratuity amount @ 15 days' wages for each year of service. As per Sub-Section 3 of Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the respondents 3 to 8 are only entitled to the gratuity @ 7 days wages for each season. But the respondents 1 and 2 had erroneously passed an order that the respondents workmen are entitled to the gratuity @ 15 days' wages for each year of service. Therefore, the order psased by the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be set aside. 4. But the respondents 1 and 2 had erroneously passed an order that the respondents workmen are entitled to the gratuity @ 15 days' wages for each year of service. Therefore, the order psased by the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3, 4 and 6 to 8 would submit that the respondents 3, 4 and 6 to 8 were working under the petitioner management and they have worked for more than 20 years on daily wages and they retired from their service. But the Management has only paid 7 days' wages as gratuity to them. In fact, they are entitled to the gratuity @ 15 day's wages per year for their service. But the petitioner Management failed to pay gratuity amount. Therefore, they filed a petition before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondnet after hearing both sides, computed the award amount by holding that the respondents workmen are entitled to the gratuity @ 15 days' wages per year of service. Challenging the said order, the Writ petitioner Management preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also correctly dismissed the said appeal by confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. In fact, the matter is covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.18079 of 2016 and 30926 of 2017 dated 11.03.2021. Therefore, the present Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides and perused all the materials available on record. 6. In this case, there is no dispute that the respondents 3 to 8 had worked under the petitioner Management. According to the Writ petitioner Management, these respondents 3 to 8 had worked only as seasonal workmen and the establishment is only a seasonal establishment. There is no dispute that the respondents 3 to 8 had been worked for more than 20 years in the Writ petitioner's Mill. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the common order passed in W.P. No.18079 of 2016 and 30926 of 2017, wherein this Court in para nos.3 to 8 held as follows:- 3. There is no dispute that the respondents 3 to 8 had been worked for more than 20 years in the Writ petitioner's Mill. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the common order passed in W.P. No.18079 of 2016 and 30926 of 2017, wherein this Court in para nos.3 to 8 held as follows:- 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners / Sugar Mill vehemently contended that the Appellate Authority has passed all these orders without application of mind and without adverting to the Circular issued by the Director of Sugar, dated 20.08.1997, wherein the formula has been laid down, as per which, the employees who have put in 20 years of service both in regular and seasonal establishment will be entitled to gratuity of 15 days wages per year. Likewise, an employee worked for more than 240 days in regular or seasonal establishment, the gratuity will be calculated at the rate of 15 days wages per year. But, when a person who works as a seasonal employee and who was not working for more than 240 days will be paid gratuity at the rate of 7 days wages per year. The relevant portion of the Circular dated 20.08.1997 of the Director of Sugar, Chennai, reads as under: “if a seasonal employee, has worked in the mills for 15 years and out of which for 10 years he had worked for less than 240 days per year, the gratuity will be calculated at the rate of 7 days wages per year and if he had worked for more than 240 days, for the remaining 5 years, the gratuity will be calculated at the rate of 15 days wages per year. In effect, he will be getting gratuity at the rate of 7 days wages per year for 10 years and 15 days wages per year for 5 years. As this is a statutory provision, gratuity should be calculated for all the cases of retirement, resignation, death or disablement due to accident etc., before and after the issue of the letter 3rd cited. The relaxation given in the letter 3rd cited, the employees who have worked alternatively as seasonal and regular employees and retired as seasonal employees are however applicable only to cases to death or retirement on or after 01.08.1993". 4. The relaxation given in the letter 3rd cited, the employees who have worked alternatively as seasonal and regular employees and retired as seasonal employees are however applicable only to cases to death or retirement on or after 01.08.1993". 4. As per the above illustration, those who have retired before 01.08.1993, the concession granted by the Government by Circular dated 20.08.1997, will be paid as per the pro~rata basis, which is illustrated in the Circular. However, the said circular was not produced before the authorities below, at the time of consideration of these cases. 5. In fact, similar cases were taken on appeal before this Court by way of Writ Petition Nos.8928 of 2008, 28325 of 2008, 30116 to 30120 of 2013 etc. In all those cases, this Court had an opportunity to deal with Circular dated 25.07.1990 and 31.07.1991 and all those workmen who had put~in more than 20 years of service were directed to be paid gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages per year. In W.P.No.30116 of 2013, the writ petitioner has produced the circular dated 20.08.1997 and contended that the worker of a seasonal establishment is entitled to 7 days wages as gratuity and not more than that. However, this Court has refused to accept the contention in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.254 of 2013 wherein relief was granted in favour of workmen. 6. M/s.M.Sreela, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would draw the attention of this Court that the circular dated 25.07.1990 issued by the Commissioner of sugar has been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.23808 of 2015 and it was stayed. The stay is still pending. 7. Be that as it may, the order passed in W.P.No.30116 of 2013 dated 21.01.2016 was taken on appeal before the Division Bench and Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.950 to 954 of 2016 dated 05.08.2016 has confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The workmen involved in all these writ petitions are also similarly placed and the judgment of Hon-ble Division Bench is squarely applicable to these cases also. In any event, any circular which is issued by the Government will not deprive the benefits given to the similarly placed persons. 8. The workmen involved in all these writ petitions are also similarly placed and the judgment of Hon-ble Division Bench is squarely applicable to these cases also. In any event, any circular which is issued by the Government will not deprive the benefits given to the similarly placed persons. 8. As contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the circular was not produced before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority did not have any chance to apply his mind to the application of Sections 2 (A) and 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.254 of 2013 and W.A.Nos.950 to 954 of 2016, I am inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner. The order passed by the Appellate Authority has no valid ground to interfere with. Accordingly, all these writ petitions stands dismissed. No costs. 7. In this case also, the respondents 3 to 8 have worked for more than 25 years and the Writ petitioner Management have also not denied the fact that the respondents workmen have worked for 20 years and there are no records to show that the establishment is only a Seasonal Establishment. There are no records as to the number of days worked by the respondents / workmen. Once the petitioner managment admitted that the workers had worked for more than 20 years, this Court can infer that they continuosly worked, unless the contray is proved. The managment has not proved the contrary. The Writ petitioner Management also has to follow the circular issued by the Director of Sugars dated 20.08.1987. Already this Court in similar number of cases passed orders and therey this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.18079 of 2016 and 30926 of 2017. Therefore, the Writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.