1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1890/2009 Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University .versus. Additional Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Cou rt's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.B.Kasat, counsel for petitioner Shri S.S.Doifode, AGP for respondent State. CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 31 st AUGUST, 2010 1] This writ petition challenges the order dated 20/2/2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Labour and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in Appeal No. PA/01/2008. The respondent no.1 by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority on 29th October, 2007. The Controlling Authority has held that the respondent/employee was entitled to payment of gratuity amounting to Rs.23,400/- along with 10% interest per annum. 2] The only ground which was urged before 2 the appellate authority was that the respondent never continuously worked as per the provisions of Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the said aspect. Shri Kasat further urged that the appellate Authority has not applied its mind to the contentions raised. 3] Perusal of the order impugned in this petition shows that the petitioner was absent when the matter was heard. Apart from this, the order passed by the Controlling Authority, it has been held that the respondent was continuously working in the post. For this purpose, the orders passed in the complaints filed by the respondent/employee before the Labour Court have been relied upon. The Labour Court has held that the respondent has rendered continuous service. 4] In view of this finding, no fault can be found in the order impugned in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit