IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16912 of 2008 Between: T. Narasimhulu, S/o. Narasimhulu, R/O. Srinivasa Nagar, Proddutur, Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Depot Manager, Mydukur Depot, Mydukur, Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the service beneﬁts and retirement beneﬁts including gratuity amount to the petitioners for the out of employment period i.e. from the date of suspension to date of reinstatement by counting the continuity of service granted by Hon’ble Labour Court as illegal and arbitrary and Consequently direct the respondents to pay all retirement beneﬁts including gratuity for the said period forthwith with interest. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16912 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Traﬃc Inspector Grade- II in APSRTC. He was removed from service vide order 27.02.1996 on disciplinary grounds. Aggrieved thereby, he ﬁled I.D.No.22 of 1998 before the Labour Court, Anantapur, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after exhausting departmental remedies. An award was passed on 10.08.2001, by the Labour Court, setting aside the order of removal. Direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner, with attendant beneﬁts and continuity of service. He was, accordingly, reinstated and thereafter, he retired on 30.06.2008. The respondents extended all the retirement beneﬁts to the petitioner, but not the gratuity for the period between 27.02.1996 and the date of reinstatement on the basis of the award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The question as to whether an employee is entitled to be paid gratuity for the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement, would depend upon the nature of relief granted by the Labour Court. In case, the Labour Court directs continuity of service, gratuity shall be paid for that period also and where such direction is absent, gratuity need not be paid. In the instant case, the Labour Court granted relief of continuity of service, also for the period during which the petitioner is out of service. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay gratuity to the petitioner for the period from 27.02.1996 i.e. the date of removal from service, to the date of reinstatement in pursuance of the award in I.D.No.22 of 1998 dated 10.08.2001, within a period of two {2} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 5th August 2008 RRB