THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.1713 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner is M/s Turbo Machinery Engineering (P) Ltd., represented by its Personnel Manager. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy Zone in P.G. Appeal No.1/2001 dated nill, in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner – company and thereby confirming the order of the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Patancheru, Medak District in Grt.Case No.2/2001 dated 17.10.2001 and thereby directing the petitioner – company to pay gratuity to the 3rd respondent – employee, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner – company, is that the 3rd respondent joined in the services of the petitioner – company on 27.6.1996 as a Supervisor and thereafter, was elevated to the position of an Engineer and worked up to 3.11.2000 and thereafter without submitting any resignation, abandoned his services and that as he has not completed the period of 5 ½ years and only served for only four years, four months, he is not entitled for any gratuity and hence the authorities below are not justified in granting gratuity of an amount of Rs.24,230-70 ps. 3. From the material available on record, it could be seen that the 3rd respondent filed claim petition before the lower authority claiming that he was appointed in the petitioner company on 21.4.1995 as Engineer and worked for about 5 ½ years in the petitioner – company and resigned on 4.11.2000 and at the time of resignation, he was drawing salary of Rs.7,000/- per month and, therefore, he is entitled to Rs.28,000/- as gratuity. As the said amount was not paid, he filed the claim before the authority. The contention of the writ petitioner, before the lower authority is that the petitioner did not work for 5 ½ years. Appreciating the entire material evidence, both oral and documentary, the lower authority found that the petitioner has three companies with slight different in their names and the managing director of all the three companies is one and the same and thus the petitioner worked in M/s Turbo Machinery Group of Companies and having 5 ½ years of continuous service in the said group of companies and accordingly granted gratuity. Further, it is to be noticed that the gratuity granted to the 3rd respondent is a meager amount that too by recording finding of fact that he worked continuously for the required number of years and this finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the tenacity on the part of the petitioner, is contesting the matter on the very same ground that the petitioner did not work for 5 ½ years, cannot be appreciated. 4. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- --- 10—02—2011