DUNGERBHAI MEGHABHAI Vs. ARBUDA MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This petition raises a short issue. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was employed by the respondent-Arbuda Mills Ltd. in January 1942 and thereafter due to closure of the shift the petitioner was discharged after giving terminal benefits somewhere in the year 1952-53. Thereafter the petitioner on commencement of the shift was again re employed in October 1954 and he continued as such until his retirement in the year 1978. The petitioner claimed gratuity on retirement. The claim of the petitioner was for Rs. 12 185.55 by treating him in continuous service from January 1942 till his retirement in 1978 The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.7 186.35 only towards that benefit and therefore he claimed that he was entitled to Rs. 4 395 by treating him to be in continuous service from 1942 till his retirement. Therefore the dispute now relates to the payment of Rs. 4 395 which depends on determination of the question whether the petitioner is entitled to treat his service prior to re employment as continuous service for the purpose of claiming gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972

(2.) . The Controlling Authority under the Act allowed the claim of the petitioner while appellate authority disallowed his claim by his order dated 17 October 1980.

(3.) . The word continuous service at the relevant time is defined in Section 2(c) of the 1972 Act as was then in force. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the expression cessation of work not due to the fault of the employee concerned includes closure of establishment which is not the fault of the workman and therefore it is a continuous service and such period cannot be treated as an interruption.