1 2025:CGHC:37125-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 544 of 2025 V. Dharma Rao S/o Late Vaddi Jogulu, Aged About 68 Years Ex- Hospi- tal Attendant, Medical Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai R/o Qtr. No. 42/ A, Street No. 16, Sector-2, Post Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, 2 - Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( C), Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 And Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C), Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.07.2025 1. Today, the matter is listed on default as the present appeal is barred by 75 days, but the delay application is not filed. 2 As the present matter is identical to WA No.497/2025, we proceed to decide the matter finally. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.30 18:17:59 +0530 2 3 In view of the above, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Heard Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPL No.63 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners. 6. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.497 of 2025 vide order dated 21.07.2025 observing as follows : “8. Bare perusal of the records show that the canteen workers were employees of the Cooperative Societies between the years 1975 to 1980. Till 1992, they did not claim the status of workers of Bhilai Steel Plant. In the year 1992, a writ petition was filed and an order was passed on 12.12.1995 and a direction was issued to grant canteens workers the status of the workers of the Bhilai Steel Plant. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ultimately, the dispute was settled between the parties. The canteen workers accepted fresh appointment orders without raising any objections. The canteen workers also accepted the amount of gratuity paid by the Cooperative Societies without any demur. They got retired from services on account of superannuation and 3 they were paid all retiral dues including the gratuity. Thereafter, they moved applications before the Controlling Authority under the Act of 1972 claiming therein the amount of gratuity, reckoning their services from the date of their initial appointment in the Cooperative Societies. 9. Further, the canteen workers would be entitled to claim parity at par with the employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant according to the Factories Act, 1948 but reckoning their services before the issuance of appointment orders by the Bhilai Steel Plant appears to be misconceived. It is admitted position that the canteen workers were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Cooperative Societies and they had accepted the terms and conditions of appointment orders. They worked there for 15 to 17 years and thereafter claimed the status of employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant. The canteen workers after retirement were paid retiral dues including the gratuity and they accepted it without raising any objection. They also accepted the amount of gratuity paid by Cooperative Societies. There was no reason or occasion for the canteen workers to move applications for payment of gratuity when it was finally paid by the BSP and accepted by employees. Further, the canteen workers also accepted the settlement arrived at between the parties on 20.10.2004 and the fresh orders of appointments pursuance to 4 the settlement between them. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to deviate from the terms and conditions of the appointment orders, particularly when they never challenged the terms and conditions of orders of appointment. 10. Further, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner Netram Sahu Vs. State of C.G. (supra) is not applicable in this case, as in the present case the appellants who are employees of canteen subsequently appointed by the BSP on the basis of the settlement arrived between them by issuance of fresh appointment orders. 11. Taking into consideration the above- discussed facts, we are of the view that the order passed by learned single judge is just and proper and needs no interference. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.497 of 2025, this appeal may also be disposed off in the same terms. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is 5 identical to Writ Appeal No.497 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.497 of 2025. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 21.07.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.497 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu