SENNIAPPAN M Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated October 24, 1986, in A. G. A. Case No. 22 of 1986 of the first respondent. The petitioner was employed in the third respondent-company in March, 1970, as an apprentice. He was absorbed in service on March 12, 1972, as a regular employee. On April 6, 1985, he resigned his job. The third respondent paid a sum of Rs. 6. 559. 85 to the petitioner towards gratuity for 11 years of service only. Hence he filed an application before the second respondent claiming the balance of gratuity of Rs. 2,400. The third respondent tiled a counter-affidavit stating that in the period of two years from March 23, 1970, to March 12, 1972, there were break in service due to the petitioner's participation in several one-day strikes. The third respondent contended that by applying the rule of 240 days work in a period of 12 months immediately preceding the break, there was no continuity of service. Hence the petitioner would be entitled to gratuity for 11 years and not 15 years.

(2.) THE second respondent passed an order on March 20, 1986, disallowing the claim for gratuity for the remaining period of two years. The second respondent, accordingly directed the third respondent to pay the sum of Rs. 1,192. 70. Against the said order, the third respondent filed the appeal before the first respondent who has allowed the appeal. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) THE contention raised by counsel for the respondent is that the finding of the appellate authority that the third respondent is of public utility service is not correct. This contention is unacceptable because there is a specific statement by the appellate authority that the authorised representative for the respondent did not deny the said fact.