IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO :4996 OF 2009 Between: Linganna ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar, A.P., and another .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4996 OF 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for his out of employment periods i.e., from 5.3.1986 to 17.3.1994, 5.6.1999 to 16.7.2002 and 23.5.2003 to 21.5.2007 as arbitrary and illegal. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in removing from the service, petitioner had earlier raised a dispute before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No.165 of 1992 and by award dated 23.9.1993, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement with continuity of service. Similarly awards were passed in I.D.No.102 of 2000 and I.D.No.4 of 2006 setting aside the subsequent orders of removal passed by the respondents and directing reinstatement into service with continuity of service. Pursuant thereto though the petitioner has been reinstated into service, the respondents refused to pay the gratuity amount to which the petitioner is entitled to during the period he was out of service. Hence the present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court reported in M.Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Central Bus Station, Hyderabad and another[1] wherein this Court held that in a case where under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal of an employee and directed that the employee be reinstated into service with continuity of service, the management could not deny the payment of gratuity to the employee on his retirement for the period during which he was out of employment as a result of the order of removal. The fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly following the above order, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay the gratuity to the petitioner for the period he was out of employment i.e., from 5.3.1986 to 17.3.1994, 5.6.1999 to 16.7.2002 and 23.5.2003 to 21.5.2007, provided the awards of the Labour Court have become final. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 28-08-2009 Gk. HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4996 OF 2009 ORDER: Dated:28.08.2009 Gk. [1] 1998(2)ALT 534