IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.6653 of 2009 Between: Bheemsen. … Petitioner And The APSRTC., reptd., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. . … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: SriA.K.Jayaprakash Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Sri V.Padmanabha Rao for Smt.B.G.Uma Devi. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”) in not paying gratuity amount for the period during which the petitioner was out of service, as illegal. The petitioner, who was a conductor, was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings in the year 1983. He raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.11 of 1992 before Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, which culminated in award dated 20-4-1993, by which the removal order of the petitioner was set aside and the Corporation was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits. However, the Labour Court imposed a lesser penalty of withholding of three annual increments. The petitioner was reinstated into service in pursuance of the said award in October, 1993 and he retired from service on 31-5-2007. The petitioner was paid gratuity amount of Rs.96,443/- and the amount of gratuity payable from the year 1983 to 1993 was not paid. 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 Vs. 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 order. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-4-2009 MNR [1] 1998 (3) ALD 76