IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16523 of 2008 Between: P. Appa Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy APSRTC, Hayathnagar Bus Depot, Hyderbaad, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, MGBS Complex, Gowliguda, Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hayathnagar Bus Depot, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for his out of employment period (01-06-1973 to 21-12-1977 and 17-08-1984 to 20-09-1990, i.e. from the dates of removal to the dates of reinstatement ) as illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to pay the grantuity with interest for the said period . Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1971 and retired from service on 31.05.2006. In between, he was removed twice, and reinstated thereafter, on the strength of the awards passed by the Labour Court. The ﬁrst removal was on 09.01.1974 and he came to be reinstated on 21.11.1977, on the strength of an award passed in I.D.No.19 of 1976 by the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The second removal was on 17.08.1984 and the reinstatement was on 20.09.1990, in pursuance of a direction issued in the award, dated 18.05.1990 passed in I.D.No.248 of 1987 by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner was extended the terminal beneﬁts including gratuity, but was denied the gratuity for the two spells referred to above. He claims that he is entitled for gratuity for the said period also. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Normally, an employee would not be granted gratuity for any period during which he was out of service. However, if a Labour Court had granted the relief of continuity of service while directing reinstatement, the gratuity is payable for that period. In the instant case, the relief of continuity of service was granted only for the second spell between 17.08.1984 and 20.09.1990. The award, which relates to the ﬁrst spell of removal, did not grant the relief of continuity of service. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing the respondents to extend the beneﬁt of gratuity for the period between 17.08.1984 and 20.09.1990 to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:31.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}