JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is finally heard and decided.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is assailed the judgment and order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rajkot under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “the Act”) in Gratuity Appeal No.30 of 1990 confirming the judgment and order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Controlling Officer at Rajkot in Gratuity Case No.41 of 2018.

4. The short issue in the present writ petition is whether the respondent can be paid the gratuity for the period from 1995-2007, for which he was out of service. It is not in dispute that the respondent was terminated from service in the year 1997, which was subject matter of challenge in the Reference (LCR) No.108 of 2003 before the Labour Court, Rajkot and by the award dated 07.10.2008, the Labour Court directed the present petitioner to reinstate him with continuity of service with 50% back wages. It is the case of the petitioner that for the aforesaid period, the respondent is not entitled to gratuity amount as he has not worked.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Paneri has submitted that the Controlling Authority has fallen in error since the respondent no.2 had in fact rendered two service one from 11.04.1995 to 26.01.2007 and again he was appointed from 27.01.2007 to 31.10.2007. It is submitted that both the authorities below has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act while calculating the amount since the respondent no.2 was not in actual service from 12.02.1996 to 26.01.2007. It is further submitted that after the period from 2007 onwards, the gratuity amount is calculated and paid by the State Government after the retirement of the respondent no.2. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order may be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Gohil appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the impugned orders do not require any interference since the same are appropriately passed. It is submitted that once the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated by the award of the Labour Court with continuity of service, the respondent no.2 will be entitled to all the benefits including the gratuity as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

7. The aforenoted facts are not in dispute. The respondent no.2, who was working under the petitioner, was terminated from service in the year 1995 i.e. on 11.04.1995, which was subject matter of challenge before the Labour Court in Reference (LCR) No.108 of 2003. By the award dated 07.10.2008, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.2 with continuity of service from 02.03.1997 with 50% back wages. Accordingly, the respondent no.2 was reinstated by the petitioner on 26.01.2007.

8. Since the respondent no.2, after the retirement, was not paid the gratuity amount for the period from 11.04.1995 to 26.01.2007, he filed the gratuity application. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.2 was appointed on 11.04.1995 and by the award dated 20.03.1997 the entire service from the date of termination has been ordered as continuous by the Labour Court.

9. By the order dated 26.03.2019, the Controlling Authority allowed the application filed by the respondent no.2 being Gratuity Case No.41 of 2018 and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,240/- for the period from 11.04.1995 to 26.01.2007. The same was carried in appeal by the petitioner, which was also not entertained.

10. It is also not in dispute that the Controlling Authority has appropriately adopted the formula as provided under Section 4(2) of the Act. The only issue, which falls for consideration is whether the respondent no.2 would be entitled to gratuity amount for the intervening period, which has been ordered to be continued.

11. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to th