Sugar mill employees’ claims for 15-day gratuity must be assessed under the applicable circular.

The petitioners had initially worked as Non-Muster Roll (NMR) employees and were later regularised as permanent Mazdoors. After 36 to 41 years of service, they retired; their gratuity had been calculated at seven days’ wages for each completed year.

They claimed the balance on the basis of a 15-day rate, relying on the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and a Commissioner of Sugar circular dated 25 July 1990. They sought recognition of their service from initial NMR engagement and interest on the delayed payment. The Court disposed of the four petitions by a common order.

Whether the respondents should consider the petitioners’ claims for gratuity at 15 days’ wages for each completed year under the Commissioner of Sugar’s circular dated 25 July 1990.

Whether the Court should direct immediate payment of the claimed balance gratuity and interest, or require the respondents first to determine eligibility.

The Court relied on the Commissioner of Sugar’s circular dated 25 July 1990, which provides for gratuity at 15 days’ wages per year of service for employees of cooperative and public-sector sugar mills retiring as seasonal employees, subject to a minimum of 20 years’ service; it states that NMR/casual service will not be counted and that gratuity for dismissed employees is payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Although the petitioners invoked the Act, the Court did not determine their statutory entitlement or interpret the Act; it directed consideration of their claims under the circular.

The Court treated the circular as the basis for assessing the claims, rather than deciding that the petitioners were already entitled to the claimed balance.

Because eligibility depended on the circular’s terms—including its service and employee-category requirements—the respondents were directed to consider the claims on their merits after receiving fresh applications with supporting documents. The order therefore left the petitioners’ eligibility, including the treatment of their NMR service, for the respondents to determine.

The petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.