HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1327 OF 2009 Dated: 18-11-2009 Between: The Managing Director, A.P. Small Scale Industries Development Corporation, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 500 018 ... APPELLANT AND G.B. Shankar Rao and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1327 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 20-10-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 15226 of 2006, this appeal has been filed by original respondent No.1, employer of present respondent No.1 – petitioner. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the appellant – employer has been directed to pay the amount of gratuity to respondent No. 1 – employee within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by it. 3. Upon perusal of the impugned order and upon hearing the learned advocates, it cannot be disputed that the respondent – employee had been permitted to take voluntary retirement and accordingly, his services came to an end upon his voluntary retirement. The question which was raised in the petition by the respondent – employee was with regard to nonpayment of gratuity. 4. In view of the fact that the respondent – employee was permitted to retire voluntarily, the learned single Judge has directed payment of gratuity. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was justified in giving such a direction in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 5. The only submission which has been made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant is that if ultimately it is held in the criminal or other proceedings that the respondent – employee had misappropriated funds of the appellant – employer or he had caused some loss to the appellant - employer, it would be difficult for the appellant – employer to recover the amount, especially if the amount of gratuity is also paid to him. 6. As stated hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the respondent – employee had been permitted to retire voluntarily and, therefore, he is entitled to the amount of gratuity. The amount of gratuity shall be paid within three weeks from today. If ultimately it is found that because of action of the respondent – employee, any loss was caused to the appellant – employer, it would be open to it to recover the amount of loss caused to it from the respondent – employee by initiating appropriate legal action. 7. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2796 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18-11-2009 ks