1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3457 OF 2009 1. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MSRTC, BULDANA. .. PETITIONER/S. VERSUS 1. P.P.KULKARNI, R/O. GOPAL NAGAR, KHAMGAON, DISTT. BULDANA. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AT AKOLA. 3. NARENDRASINGH NAGBHIRE, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri V.G.Wankhede, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : AUGUST 24, 2009. 1. This petition by employer assails orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Akola as well as appellate Authority under the said Act, who concurrently held that the respondent/ workman was entitled to a sum of Rs.Fifty Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy One as gratuity with interest. 2 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 had been dismissed in domestic enquiry and was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. He was accordingly reinstated but resigned on 18.05.2001. It is petitioner’s case that after reinstatement till he resigned he had not put in 240 days’ of service in eight preceding calendar years on account of his absence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, since respondent No.1 has not worked for more than 240 days in preceding calender years, those years cannot be counted for the purpose of gratuity. This contention is not correct. Sub-section (1) of Section 2A of the Act provides for inclusion of service which may be interrupted on account of absence from duty without leave unless such absence has been treated as break in service by passing appropriate orders in accordance with the standing orders. Since this is not shown to have been done the authorities rightly computed service of respondent No.1 for the purpose of payment of gratuity. The impugned orders, therefore, do not call for any interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.