Jagannadha Rao, C J.

This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment of the learned single judge in OP 7615 of 1987 dated 6-9-1991.

2. The writ petition was filed questioning the orders passed by the second respondent (Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kollam) and of the third respondent (appellate authority) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act). The said authorities had held that the appellant was not entitled to gratuity as provided in the Act.

3. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant-writ petitioner was initially employed by the first respondent-Company prior to 1-9-1970 and was admittedly retrenched on 18-12-1970. The appellant is a blacksmith. However, subsequent to the retrenchment, it appears that the Company was engaging the appellant for wages whenever there was work. The evidence was that whenever there was such work, a notice was being put up in the notice board and the appellant used to attend to that work and receive his wages for that work. It was further established that though the appellant claims to be under continuous employment after retrenchment from 18-12-1970 to 21-3-1981 for eleven