1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned orders dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 whereby the said Authority has allowed the claim for gratuity made by the said respondents. The said orders are ex parte orders and according to the petitioner, the proceedings were undertaken ex parteby treating the petitioner as served even though the petitioner was never served in any of these proceedings. The submission is that address of the petitioner was deliberately incorrectly mentioned in their claim petitions by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as RZ-15A, Narsingh Garden, Khyala, New Delhi -110018, even though, they were well aware that the address of the petitioner is RZ-15, Narsingh Garden, Khyala, New Delhi -110018. That apart the case of the petitioner is that the said respondents had raised their industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court vide a notification dated 22.8.2006 with regard to their termination. The said reference was registered as I.D. No. 161/2007. In the said proceedings, the respondents had given the following details in respect of their services: SI. Workers Designation Salary Service No. 1. Sh. Prem Singh Foreman Rs. 3000/- 6 years 2. Sh. Manak Ram Machineman Rs. 2700/- 5 years 3. Sh. Ram Avdhesh Machineman Es.2772/- 5 years 4. Bhagwan Dass Helper Rs. 2200/- 6 years 2. Upon contest by the petitioner, the reference was answered against the workmen. The finding returned was that Manak Ram i.e. respondent No 2 did not even share the employer-employee relationship with the petitioner-management and that the remaining three workmen i.e. Ram Avdhesh, Prem and Bhagwan Dass i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had abandoned their services. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Award was withheld by the respondents when they preferred their claims under the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the Controlling Authority. The said respondents also inflated the last drawn wages when they approached the Controlling Authority under the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972. The amounts claimed by the said respondents as their last drawn wages before the Controlling Authority were the following: SI. Respondent Salary No. 1. Shri Manak Ram (respondent No. 2) Rs. 4057/- 2. Ram Avdesh (respondent No. 3) Rs. 4057/- 3. The amounts claimed by the said respondents as their last drawn wages before the Controlling Authority were the following: SI. Respondent Salary No. 1. Shri Manak Ram (respondent No. 2) Rs. 4057/- 2. Ram Avdesh (respondent No. 3) Rs. 4057/- 3. Prem (respondent No. 4) Rs. 4057/- 4. Bhagwan Dass (respondent No. 5) Rs. 3633/- 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as respondent No. 2 Shri Manak Ram is concerned, his claim did not lie. Since he was not even a workman/employee of the petitioner, there was no question of his being granted any gratuity. So far as the other three respondents are concerned, namely, respondent Nos. 3 to 5, Counsel for the petitioner submits that they did not have 5 years of service with the petitioner before they abandoned their service. The dates of engagements had deliberately been misstated in their respective claims by the said respondents. The dates of engagement were stated as 30.10.1995, 24.10.1994 and 24.10.1994 in respect of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 respectively. Learned Counsel submits that the declaration forms filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 with the ESIC, however gives their dates of appointment as 19.2.1998. The respondent, in their respective claims had claimed that they had served the petitioner-management up to 24.10.2000. Consequently, the lengths of service in respect of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was a little over two years and not more. Mr. Baneti, submits that under Section 4 of the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972, entitlement to gratuity arises only in respect of employees who have rendered continuously service for not less than 5 years. Therefore, neither of the respondents was entitled to any gratuity. 5. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 does not dispute that an earlier Award was rendered on 25.7.2008 in I.D. No. 161/2007. He submits that the said Award was rendered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, would have no bearing on the claim of gratuity made by the said respondents. He submits that the right to claim gratuity arises on account of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., III (1996) CLT 93 (SC)= (1996) 4 SCC 750 , in Interlocutory Application No. 22 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677/1985 on 8th July, 1996. He submits that the right to claim gratuity arises on account of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., III (1996) CLT 93 (SC)= (1996) 4 SCC 750 , in Interlocutory Application No. 22 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677/1985 on 8th July, 1996. This order was passed in respect of industries running in non-conforming areas. Such industries were directed to be closed down and to be shifted elsewhere. While doing so, the Supreme Court had directed that the workmen shall be paid wages, etc. and under Clause (f), it was directed that, "the gratuity amount payable to any workman shall be paid in addition". The petitioners industry was one such industry. 6. However, it is not disputed that in respect of respondent No. 2, the finding returned by the Labour Court was that he was not an employee of the petitioner and, in respect of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the finding had been returned that they had abandoned their services. He also does not dispute the fact that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have rendered only about two years of service. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are guilty of gross suppression and misstatement before the Controlling Authority under the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972 which has resulted in the passing of the impugned orders. Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside. 8. The submission that the Award dated 25.7.2008 in I.D. No. 161/2007 has no bearing on the proceedings under the Payments of Gratuity Act, 1972 has only to be stated to be rejected Since respondent No. 2 did not even bear a relationship of employer-employee with the petitioner, the question of respondent No. 2 being entitled to claim any gratuity does not arise. Respondent No. 2 is guilty of gross-suppression of the said Award which attained finality while preferring his claim before the Controlling Authority. On this short ground, the impugned orders passed in favour of respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained. 9. So far as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned, there is no answer with the said respondents to their own declaration made under the ESIC Act wherein they have declared their dates of engagement as 30.10.1995, 24.10.1994 and 24.10.1994 respectively. On this short ground, the impugned orders passed in favour of respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained. 9. So far as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned, there is no answer with the said respondents to their own declaration made under the ESIC Act wherein they have declared their dates of engagement as 30.10.1995, 24.10.1994 and 24.10.1994 respectively. They have themselves claimed that they had served the petitioner only till 24.10.2000/30.10.2000. The said service is well below just about two years. Being conscious of the fact they cannot claim gratuity, if their services is less than 5 years, they have deliberately misstated the dates of their initial engagements in their claims by claiming that they have been engaged in the year 1994-95 as aforesaid. The said statements of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 stands belied by their own declaration before the ESIC. 10. The submission that the said respondents are entitled to gratuity in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court has no merit. The Supreme Court did not create any special right in respect of workmen to claim gratuity if they were not so entitled under the law. The direction given by the Supreme Court cannot be read as a statute. In any event, the direction was that the gratuity amount payable to any workman shall be paid in addition. Therefore, the gratuity amount had to be first payable in terms of the Act before the same would be paid. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is also entitled to costs of Rs. 2,000/- from each of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on account of their making baseless claims by sheer suppression and mis-statement of facts before the Controlling Authority. The petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.