1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 6153 of 2025 M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., East Zone, Kolkata Versus Union of India & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Victor Chatterjee. For the Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Ananya Neogi, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee. Judgment reserved on : 27.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 29.09.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. The writ application has been preferred being aggrieved by an order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata/Controlling Authority/Respondent no. 2 and the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata/Appellate Authority/Respondent no. 3. 2 2. Vide the impugned order the Controlling Authority granted gratuity from the date of appointment being 07.02.2002 till superannuation dated 12.06.2020. 3. The writ petitioner’s case is that the workman/employee was engaged through different contractors and has also named the three contractors under whom the respondent/workman was employed during his tenure of work. As such, the petitioner states that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, it being the principal employer and as such no direction can be passed against the petitioner to pay gratuity to the worker. 4. It appears from the order of the Controlling Authority that the petitioner was a party before it. The contractor was not before the Controlling Authority though the petitioner raised the issue before the Controlling Authority, the Controlling Authority did not add the contractor as parties. 5. One of the contractors being M/s. Swastika Enterprise appeared and accepted the fact that the worker was engaged by them in the premises of the IRCTC for the period from 16.04.2008 to 03.06.2018. The petitioner’s submission is that the Controlling Authority also relied upon the definition of the term ‘employee’ under section 2(e) which defines ‘employee’ as follows:- "2(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, 3 railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity." 6. The Controlling Authority relying upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in Dhakshinamaurthy S vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Chennai & others 2003-I-LLJ-32, has ruled that “the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract labour". In this judgment, the Hon’ble High Court has referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Workers and Ors. vs. Union of India (AIR 1974) SC 1832. The relevant portion is reproduced below:- "In cases where the manufacturer or trade mark holder himself employee’s labour there is direct relationship of master and servant and, therefore, liability is attracted by reason for that relationship. There cannot by any question of unreasonableness. In the second category, the manufacture or trademark holder engaged contract labour through a contractor and he becomes the Principal Employer. Though such labour may be engaged by a contractor with or without the knowledge of the manufacturer or trademark bolder, this contract labour is engaged for the Principal Employer, who happens to the trade mark holder or the manufacture. The liability arises by reason of contract labour negated for or on behalf of the Principal Employer......” 4 In view of the above premises the Controlling Authority has no hesitation in saying that the applicant is the employee of M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd, Kolkata for the purpose of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 even though the applicant has rendered service under various contractors from time to time. The contactors are mere commission agents as the contractor change from time to time but the applicant continued to work without any break.” 7. In appeal the Appellate Authority held as follows:- “After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances Respondent No.1 was on a contractual arrangement in IRCTC through various contractors, the continuity of his work has been established from the date of appointment 07.02.2002 to the date of cessation of work on 12.06.2020 and total length of his service is 18 years 4 months 5 days rounded of figure is 18 years. The last pay drawn according to the worker paid to him by the contractor is Rs.18,070. Therefore, the gratuity calculated in respect of the applicant as per formula is as below:- Determination of amount of gratuity payable : “Rs 18,070X15X18/26 -1,87,650-(Rupees one lakh eighty seven thousand six hundred fifty only) It has nowhere been denied or refuted by either the contractors or the Appellant that the worker has not been providing services to the M/s. IRCTC during the above period. Coming to the Employer-Employees relationship, it is clear that the services of the Respondent No.1 have been enjoyed by the Appellant and the Appellant has made all the payment of wages and other statutory dues to the worker through the contractors. Therefore, in my considered opinion it is amply clear that the applicant 5 being a contractual worker working under 1. Ms Adyama Traders 2. Ms. Swastika Enterprise and 3. M/s. Vision India Services Pvt. Ltd. falls well within the ambit under Section 2(e) of the P.G.Act, 1972. Since there is no dispute regarding the date of appointment and date of termination and the last pay drawn and no objection has been received with regard to the same it is stated that both the Principal Employer as well as the contractors became responsible for making payment of gratuity to the applicant along with the 10% interest on delayed payment. The Principal Employer may arrange to make the payment to the worker through the last contractor with whom the Respondent has been working. There is no doubt that the contractor is the immediate employer but since the worker has worked in the premises of IRCTC for such a long period it becomes the responsibility of both the contractor and the Principal Employer to make payment of gratuity to the worker as is due to him according to the last wages drawn. The Principal Employer can not absolve themselves from the responsibility of Payment of Gratuity to the worker as the worker has worked for the Principal Employer throughout. The principle of 'For whom", "By whom” is totally applicable here to establish an indirect employer employee relationship between the contractor and Principal Employer. Therefore, the order of the Controlling Authority is upheld and the Appellant i.e. M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. Kolkata. Principal Employer is directed to make the payment of gratuity of amounting to Rs.1,87,650 (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only) to Shri Dinanath Rana, Respondent No-1 in this case directly if no arrangement for making 6 payment through the last contractor is possible along with prevailing interest rate on this amount from the due date of payment to the actual date of disbursement of the same under intimation to this office” 8. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment by a Coordinate Bench in WPA 2570 of 2025 in The Deputy General Manager (B&O), SBI vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 16.04.2026, wherein the Court held as follows:- “7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that it is admitted position that the contract worker was never in employment of the petitioner herein. It not the case of the contract worker that he was appointed by the petitioner rather, it is the admitted position that the contract worker had worked as a contract labourer under the contractor. Records would further reveal that the contract worker had proceeded to file the application in form 'N' as regards nonpayment of gratuity against the contractors under whom he had worked and in the process as aforesaid had robed in the principal employer as well. It is also a matter of record that the proceedings were contested by the petitioner upon receipt of notice in form 'O' and thereafter the controlling authority on the basis of the issues recorded as noted above, decided the cause in favour of the contract worker and directed the contractor to make payment. The contract worker is not aggrieved by such order. It is rather the contractor who filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 7(7) of said Act. The contractor while preferring the appeal, also admitted that it had 7 employed the contract worker. Facts in this regard are not in dispute. Notwithstanding the aforesaid at the instance of the contractor, the appellate authority appears to have not only reversed the order by directing the principal employer to make payment of the gratuity but has also enhanced the amount. 8. Having regard to the above, what falls for consideration before this Court is whether in absence of any employee and employer relationship, can a principal employer be made liable for payment of gratuity by borrowing the provisions of Section 21 (4) of the 1970 Act. In this contest, it may be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.(supra) in paragraph 13 in no uncertain terms has returned the finding that the definition of wages under the Act of 1970, are contractual wages, and would cover within its scope, inter alia, wages, which are subject matter of Section 21 are specified sums, which are payable in paraesenti by the contractor under the terms of the contract of employment with each other as well as under any existing award, settlement or order of the Court. Section 21 of the Act of 1970 does not deal with nor does it cover other obligations which are imposed upon the contractor under the provisions such as Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules 1971. Hence Section 21(4) of the Act of 1970 will not apply to such obligation of the contractor which may be subject matter of dispute between the contractor and his workers at the time of disbursement of wages and which do not fall within the definition of wages under the said Act of 1970. 8 9. It may also be noted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sailen Seth (supra) on identical terms had observed that is futile to compare the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with those of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The former Act was enacted with an object to provide for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantation, ports, railway companies, shops or other establishments and for that matters connected therewith or identical thereto, whereas the latter Act was enacted with an object to "Regulate the employment of contract". 10. I also notice that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of FIS Payment Solutions and Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as also this Court in the case of Kajal Barui (supra), by noting the scope and ambit of the said Act had refused to saddle the principal employer with the liability towards payment of gratuity. Though, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate has relied on the judgment delivered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shibaprasad Sutradhar (supra), Sail Growth Works(supra) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited(supra), I find that all the aforesaid judgments have been delivered by the same Co-ordinate Bench although a different view as noted above was taken in prior judgments delivered on this issue in the case of Sailen Seth (supra), FIS Payment Solution and Services India Pvt. Ltd (supra) and the case of Kajal Barui (supra). It may also be noted that the Co-ordinate Bench by relying on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of The Superintending Engineer Purchase and Administration Mettur 9 Thermal Power Station Mettur Dam(supra), had held the principal employer to be liable based on Section 21(4) of the Act of 1970 which has not been accepted both by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.(supra) and the other judgments delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench as noted above. 11. In the light of above and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.(supra) with respect, I am unable to accept the above finding returned in the case of The Superintending Engineer Purchase and Administration Mettur Thermal Power Station Mettur Dam(supra) by importing the provisions of the 1970 Act to that of the said Act, so as to saddle the principal employer with the liability of payment of gratuity. The order impugned thus appears to be perverse.” 9. Parties have filed their written notes. 10. The petitioner has admitted that all the contractors were registered, having independent PF and ESI Code numbers. They were simultaneously supplying manpower for their other clients also. 11. It is further stated that the statutory protection to a contract labour given under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Prohibition) Act, 1970 is for a different purpose and the concept of "wages" or liability of the Principal Employer under Section 21 of the Act of 1970 cannot be imported in the 10 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; since the P.G. Act is a latter statute and occupies the specific field of gratuity payment. 12. The definition of ‘employee’ as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is as follows:- "2(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity" 13. The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) State of Punjab vs. Labour Court, Jullunder & Ors. reported in (1980) 1 SCC 4. (ii) Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Anr. vs. Aloka Mahato & Ors. in MAT 1858 of 2016 dated 18.11.2021. (iii) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanandi Coalfields Limited reported in (2020) 18 SCC 71. 14. The respondent no. 4 by filing written notes has admitted that he was a worker and gave his service under the establishment under the full supervision, monitoring and control of the IRCTC as principal employer by deployment through several agencies from 07.02.2002 to 12.06.2020 details of which are as follows:- 11 1) 07.02.2002 to 15.04.2008-M/s Addyama Traders. 2) 16.04.2008 to 03.06.2018-M/s Swastika Enterprise. 3) 04.06.2018 to 12.06.2020-M/s Vision India Services Pvt. Ltd. 15. It is the contention of the said respondent that the petitioner has been paying gratuity to several contractors’ workers and, as such, are also liable to pay the employee in the present case. 16. The respondent relies upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2443 of 2022 (Suryakand D. Lad vs. M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.) in respect of the definition of „employee‟. 17. The following is relevant from the judgments relied upon:- i. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and Ors., (2019) 13 SCC 82, the Supreme Court held:- “24. We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been reiterated in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. [Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 804] , as follows : (SCC pp. 437-38, para 65) “65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include, inter alia: (i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary action; (v) whether there is continuity of service; and (vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision. As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the 12 observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] , International Airport Authority of India case [International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 257] and Nalco case [NALCO Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353].” ii. Hussainbhai, Calicut vs The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 257, the Supreme Court held:- “Held: The facts found are that the work done by the workmen was an integral part of the industry concerned, that the raw material was supplied by the management, that the factory premises belonged to the management, that the equipment used also belonged to the management, and that the finished product was taken by the management for its own trade. The workmen were broadly under the control of the management and defective articles were directed to be rectified by the management. This concatenation of circumstances is conclusive that the workmen were the workmen of the petitioner. (Para 2) The true test is where a worker or group of workers labour to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relation-ship ex contractu is of no consequence, when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the naked truth is discerned, and especially since it is one of the myriad devices resorted to by manage-ments to avoid the 13 responsibility when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer based on Arts. 38, 32, 42, 43 and 43A. If livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries cannot snap the real life-bond. If, however, there is total dissociation, in fact, between the disowning management and the aggrieved workmen, the employer is in substance and in real life-terms, by another. (Paras 5 to 7) Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. Union of India, (1974) 4 SCC 43: 1974 SCC (L & S) 205, followed.” 18. In Subramaniam S. Arjun & 15 Ors. vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. And………., decided on 23 August, 2023, the Bombay High Court held:- “59. Having dealt with the rival submissions, this Court in exercise of plenary writ jurisdiction must look at the substance of the matter and where justice of the case lies. The petitioners rendered services as contract workmen to ONGC in excess of 15 years, on an average. The petitioners services were so utilized through different contractors. The contractors changed but the principal employer remained constant. ONGC had entered into a MoU to make a provision to extend the gratuity benefit to the contract-workmen. In this setting of the matter, if the submission on behalf of ONGC is to be accepted, the contractor through whom the services of the petitioner were being used on the date of the cessation of employment, would alone be the person liable to pay the gratuity for the entire service tenure and that would bring in the element of the liability of the last contractor to pay gratuity even in respect of the past service for which the contract employees were not employed by him. Such liability can only be fastened either under a statutory obligation or contractual stipulation. No statutory prescription to cover such liability could be pressed into service by the ONGC. Nor the Court finds any such contract between last contractor and the predecessor contractors, or for that matter, between the last contractor and ONGC. In contrast, in the case 14 of Cummins (supra), the successor contractor had incurred an obligation pursuant to a contract with the predecessor contractor, to pay gratuity. 60. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the Appellate Authority was in error in setting aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority fastening the liability on ONGC to pay gratuity. Petitions thus deserve to be allowed.” 19. In Indian Institute of Technology Bombay vs Tanaji Babaji Lad & Ors., in Writ Petition No. 12746 of 2024, the Bombay High Court held:- “31) When IIT, Bombay is specific in directing deposit of ESIC and PF contribution, it is incomprehensible as to why liability for payment of gratuity was not specifically incorporated in the Work Order. It appears that in the description of work appended to the contract, there is a condition for continuous deployment of workmen for maximum 89 days excluding Sundays and holidays against various requisition issued by the Estate Office. Far from engaging different workers for maximum tenure of 89 days, the Respondents continued to work with IIT, Bombay notwithstanding replacement of various contractors. In fact, if the tests laid down by the Apex Court in Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air India Ltd.& Ors, AIRONLINE 2013 SC 652, Respondent would be in a position to satisfy most of the said tests for the purpose of establishment of employer – employee relationship even under the ID Act. Since the enquiry into existence of employeremployee relationship in the context of PG Act is summary or preliminary in nature, which does not bind parties outside the framework of PG Act, it is not necessary to satisfy all the tests laid down in Balwant Rai Saluja (supra). Be that as it may. It is not necessary to delve deeper into the terms and conditions of Work Order to which Respondents are not parties. The present case involves peculiar facts and circumstances, under which some workmen have continued with IIT-Bombay through multiple contractors. I am therefore, convinced that for the limited purpose of payment of gratuity, Respondents are required to be treated as employee 15 of IIT Bombay. No interference is therefore warranted in the impugned orders.” 20. In Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. Etc. Etc vs Air India Ltd. & Ors., 2014 (9) SCC 407, on decided on 25 August, 2014, the Supreme Court held:- “1. In view of the difference of opinion by two learned Judges, and by referral order dated 13.11.2013 of this Court, these Civil Appeals are placed before us for our consideration and decision. The question before this bench is whether the workmen engaged in statutory canteens, through a contractor, could be treated as employees of the principal establishment. 2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the learned Judges differed in their opinion regarding the liability of the principal employer running statutory canteens and further regarding the status of the workmen engaged thereof. The learned Judges differed on the aspect of supervision and control which was exercised by the Air India Ltd. (for short, “the Air India”)- respondent No. 1, and the Hotel Corporations of India Ltd. (for short, “the HCI”)-respondent No. 2, over the said workmen employed in these canteens. The learned Judges also had varying interpretations regarding the status of the HCI as a sham and camouflage subsidiary by the Air India created mainly to deprive the legitimate statutory and fundamental rights of the concerned workmen and the necessity to pierce the veil to ascertain their relation with the principal employer. 84. In our considered view, and in light of the principles applied in the Haldia case (supra), such control would have nothing to do with either the appointment, dismissal or removal from service, or the taking of disciplinary action against the workmen working in the canteen. The mere fact that the Air India has a certain degree of control over the HCI, does not mean that the employees working in the canteen are the Air India’s employees. The Air India exercises control that is in the nature of supervision. Being the primary shareholder in the HCI and shouldering certain financial burdens such as providing with the subsidies as required by law, the Air India would be entitled to have an opinion or a say in ensuring effective utilization of resources, monetary or otherwise. The said supervision or control would appear 16 to be merely to ensure due maintenance of standards and quality in the said canteen. 85. Therefore, in our considered view and in light of the above, the appellants-workmen could not be said to be under the effective and absolute control of Air India. The Air India merely has control of supervision over the working of the given statutory canteen. Issues regarding appointment of the said workmen, their dismissal, payment of their salaries, etc. are within the control of the HCI. It cannot be then said that the appellants are the workmen of Air India and therefore are entitled to regularization of their services. 86. It would be pertinent to mention, at this stage, that there is no parity in the nature of work, mode of appointment, experience, qualifications, etc., between the regular employees of the Air India and the workers of the given canteen. Therefore, the appellants-workmen cannot be placed at the same footing as the Air India’s regular employees, and thereby claim the same benefits as bestowed upon the latter. It would also be gainsaid to note the fact that the appellants-herein made no claim or prayer against either of the other respondents, that is, the HCI or the Chefair. 87. In terms of the above, the reference is answered as follows : The workers engaged by a contractor to work in the statutory canteen of a factory would be the workers of the said factory, but only for the purposes of the Act, 1948, and not for other purposes, and further for the said workers, to be called the employees of the factory for all purposes, they would need to satisfy the test of employer-employee relationship and it must be shown that the employer exercises absolute and effective control over the said workers.” 21. In the present case:- a) The workers were appointed through contractors (Identity Cards). b) Wages was paid by the contractor. 17 c) The workers though working under one contractor after another, were with the same principal employer, the writ petitioner herein. 22. The orders of a Co-ordinate Bench in WP 2221(W) of 2015 and the order in Appeal in MAT 1858 of 2018 have been placed. 23. The Courts held as follows:- “Single Bench:- “……Under the 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the principal employer is to pay the wages of the contractor. Under Section 2(h) of the said Act wages have been assigned the same meaning as given to it by Clause (vi) of Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Wages includes gratuity under Section 2(vi)(d) of the said Act……..” “Division Bench:- “Under the 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the principal employer is to pay the wages of the contractor. Under Section 2(h) of the said Act wages have been assigned the same meaning as given to it by Clause (vi) of Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Wages includes gratuity under Section 2(vi)(d) of the said Act. In those circumstances, the respondent no. 5 is directed to pay the gratuity claim of the petitioners by 16th August, 2016. In default, the respondent no. 1 will have to pay this claim to the petitioners by 29th September, 2016. All the papers are before this Court. 1 Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. This writ application is accordingly disposed of.” 18 Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant can be directed to pay the gratuity amount to the widow of the deceased employee within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and upon payment of the same to the widow of the deceased employee, the appellants are granted liberty to recover the said amount from the said contractor who is impleaded as the fifth respondent in the writ petition namely, M/s. Radha Mohan Singh having its office at Chasnala main road, P.O. Chasnala, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Pin 828835.” 24. Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, lays down:- “Section 21(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor.” 25. Section 2 Payment of wages Act, 1936, lays down:- “Section 2. Definitions:- ……………………… (vi) "wages" means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances, or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes- (a)any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court; (b)any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work or holidays or any leave period; 19 (c)any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment (whether called a bonus or by any other name); (d)any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions, but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made; (e)any sum to which the person employed is entitled under any scheme framed under any law for the time being in force, but does not include- (1) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit-sharing or otherwise) which does not form part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment or which is not payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court; (2) the value of any house-accommodation, or of the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service excluded from the computation of wages by a general or special order of the [appropriate Government]; (3) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which may have accrued thereon; (4) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession; (5) any sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or (6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employment in cases other than those specified in sub- clause (d).” 26. Gratuity, payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is a gratuitous payment required to be made by an employer to his 20 employee at the time of termination of services of the employee or upon such employee's death. Section 21 (4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA), mandates that a principal employer is responsible for the payment of 'wages' to a contract employee in the event of a contractor's failure to pay within the stipulated timelines or in the event of a contractor making a short payment. The principal employer then has the ability to recover the amount paid as 'wages', from the contractor. Section 2(h) of the CLRA defines the term 'wages' as all remuneration (whether by salary, allowances or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed, which would if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes, among others, "(d) any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment...". However, it excludes "(6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employees in cases other than those specified in (d)." In Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur vs. Appellate Authority, Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore & Anr, 2012 LLR 1160, it has been held that gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 falls within this definition of ‘wages’. 21 27. The principal employer or the contractor may be liable to pay gratuity to contract employees, depending on the circumstances. Principal employer  The principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract employees if the contractor fails to pay.  The principal employer is liable to pay gratuity if the contractor makes a short payment.  The principal employer is liable to pay gratuity if the contractor terminates the services of the contract employee.  The principal employer is liable to pay gratuity if the contract employee works for multiple contractors. Contractor  The contractor is liable to pay gratuity to contract employees if they have worked for at least five years and the contract is separate from the company.  The contractor is liable to pay gratuity to contract employees who have rendered continuous service. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA) and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 govern the payment of gratuity to contract employees. 22 28. Therefore the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.07.2024 which is under challenge is modified to the extent that as and when the petitioner has to make the payment of gratuity, when the employment ceases, he shall be at liberty to recover the said amount from the contractor. 29. The duty of the principal employer is to ensure the welfare of all employees engaged in carrying out it’s work, either directly or through contractors. 30. Section 20 and 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, lays down the responsibility of the principal employer in respect of such contract labours. The same principle shall also apply in respect of all dues of an employee engaged through a contractor by the principal employer to carry out the work of it’s establishment. 31. The impugned orders dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata/Controlling Authority/Respondent no. 2 and dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata/Appellate Authority/Respondent no. 3, being in accordance with law require no interference. 32. WPA 6153 of 2025 is dismissed. 33. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 34. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 23 35. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)