Sir(s),
1. The member who initiated this thread has not mentioned whether the unit to which he has referred is a "factory, mine" etc. as mentioned in section 3(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. If the said unit is such which is manufacturing unit and by adding 6 contractor employees, the strength of workmen becomes more than 10, hence may be called as factory and thus, in my opinion, the provisions of said Gratuity Act are applicable. As per provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 workmen engaged through contractors are also to be counted while counting 10 or more workmen.
2. Further if the unit to which the initiator of this thread has referred is "shop or establishment" as mentioned in section 3(b) of said Gratuity Act, even then the number of persons working becomes 6+6=12 and hence is coverable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. I am doubtful if any body can legally contest that the term "persons" does not include 6 persons engaged through contractors. In other labour laws also viz.-Employees Prov. Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (section 3(a) and ESI Act, 1948 (section 2(12) etc. the term "persons" has been used. Thus, making the coverage of all such statues very wide i.e. the persons engaged temporarily, casual, adhoc or also through contractors are also to be counted for making it 10 or more.
3. Therefore, in my opinion, the contractor of 6 contractor employees (if other condition of eligibility for gratuity are fulfilled as per Gratuity Act) is responsible for discharging his duties for payment of gratuity to the contractor employees as per provisions of said Gratuity Act. Otherwise, as per provisions of Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ,the principal employer is responsible for payment of gratuity to said contractor employee( as any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed) (section 2(vi) of said pPayment of Wages Act, 1936. It is another aspect whether later on the principal employer will be in a position to recover the amounts from contractor or not.
4. I could not trace out any judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court on this specific issue, but in a case titled- Mettur Thermal Power Station -vs- Appellate Authority, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in its 2012 year judgment has decided the issue in favour of person who had worked through contractor before his regularisation in the said concern. Copy of said judgment is enclosed as an attachment.
5. Perhaps seniors/experts will see my above views and point out if there are any lapses at my level.