IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9351 of 2008 Between: P.Moses, S/o. late P.Sayanna, E.No.88178 of APSRTC Tandur Depot, R.R.District, R/o. H.No.4-115,Chengol Village, Tandur Post and Mandal, R.R.dist., ..... PETITIONER AND Depot Manager, APSRTC Tandur Depot,R.R.District. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay the gratuity for the period from the date of removal to reinstatement, which has bee treated as continuity of service and all attendant benefits by the Hon'ble Labour Court-III at Hyderabad, by passing award in I.D.No.184 of 1992 on 14.09.1993, non-payment of gratuity for the said period is as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, violation of Lower Court Award and principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner retired as Conductor on 31.05.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. He was denied the gratuity for the period between 20.04.1982 and 24.01.1994, on the ground that he was out of service during that period. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Pargi, through an order, dated 20.04.1982. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner filed I.D.No.184 of 1992 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 14.09.1993, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service, with continuity of service and attendant benefits. Back wages were denied. The payment of gratuity to an employee does not depend upon his physical rendering of service. Though the petitioner did not serve the Corporation between 1982 and 1994, in view of the award passed by the Labour Court, there existed continuity of service and the physical rendering of services. In M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager[1], this Court had taken such a view. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondent to pay the gratuity for the period between the date of order of removal, dated 20.04.1982, and the date of reinstatement consequent upon the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.184 of 1992. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.28.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} [1] 1998 (3) ALD 76