IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8223 of 2009 Between: T.Laxmamma W/o.late T.Ramulu R/o.H.No.18-439, Shanthi Nagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Depot Manager, Miryalaguda Bus Depot, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: Sri V.PADMANABHA RAO for SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying gratuity for the period from 16-11-1985 to 01-06-1993 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel representing Smt B.G.Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the employee”) was conductor of the respondent-Corporation. His services were terminated as a measure of discipline on 16-11-1985. He raised an industrial dispute by way of I.D.No.3 of 1992 before Labour Court-III (for short “the Labour Court”), Hyderabad. The said I.D. was allowed in favour of the employee by award dated 01-12-1992. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the employee into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages. The employee retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30-09-2008 and a few days thereafter, he died. While making settlement of the retirement benefits in favour of the petitioner, the respondents have denied gratuity for the period from 1985-1993 during which the employee was out of service. Questioning this action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is admitted, at the bar, that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner by a number of orders of this Court and one such order being in M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad and another[1]. In the said case, which is identical to the present one, this Court held as under- “The Labour Court registered the said reference as I.D.No.88/82 and after adjudication it passed the award on 25-3-1985 and the operative portion of the award reads thus: “In the result, the order of removal passed against the petitioner is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner is not entitled to any back wages. He is entitled to his wages from the date of this order. Award is passed accordingly.” The petitioner was reinstated into service as per the direction of the Labour Court on 26-6-1985. The petitioner was retired from the service w.e.f 30-9-1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. On retirement, the respondent did not pay the gratuity admissible to the petitioner taking into account the out of employment period i.e., from 22-4- 1967 to 26-6-1985. Being aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed. The respondent have filed counter. In the counter, the management has contended that during 22-4-1967 to 22-6-1985, the petitioner was not in actual service and therefore, he is not entitled to claim gratuity for that period. The contention of the management is apparently untenable. Since the industrial Court has granted to the petitioner the continuity of service, it should be held that for all practical purposes, the petitioner should be deemed to have been in continuous service although. If that is so, there is no justification to exclude the period between 22-4-1967 and 26-6-1985 for the purpose of computation of the gratuity payable to the petitioner. In the result, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to compute the gratuity payable to the petitioner taking into account the out of employment period i.e., between 22-4-1967 and 26-6-1985 into account and after so computing to pay the balance of gratuity to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” Later, this Court disposed of several writ petitions of this nature following the above order. In view of the same, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the above-reproduced order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st April, 2009 vrn [1] 1998 (3) ALD 76