K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The petitioners in all the above writ petitions raise similar contentions in their claim for entitlement of gratuity under the 2nd respondent Bank.

The facts are that all the petitioners had service exceeding 4 years and 9 months in the 2nd respondent Bank. Their claim for gratuity made before the Controlling Authority- the 3rd respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was upheld under Section 2A of the Act. However, on appeal, the appellate authority reversed the same accepting the contention of the employer that the gratuity entitlement would arise only on completion of five continuous years of service.

2. By Section 4 of the Act, the gratuity entitlement arises after an employee has “rendered continuous service for not less than five years.” The continuous service has been defined in Section 2A as inserted by Act 26 of 1984.

“2A Continuous service. For the purpose of this Act,

(1) An employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has, for that period, been in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave (not being absence in respect of which an order treating the absence as break in service has been passed in accordance with the standing orders, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment), lay off strike or a lock out or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the commencement of this Act;

(2) Where an employee not being an employee employed in a seasonable establishment is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1), for any period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer-

(a) for the said period of one year, if the employee during the period of twelve calender months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-](i)one hundred and ninety days, in the case of any employee employed below the ground in a mine or in an establishment which works for less than six days in a week; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case,

3. By sub section (1) continuous service means uninterpreted service including interruption, on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave etc., as long as the absence is not treated as a break in service, by a specific order. Sub-section (2) specifically deems continuous service within any period of one year, not coming within the meaning of clause (1), to be continuous service, if in the preceding period of twelve calendar months, the workman has worked for 240 days. Hence by a deeming provision, the statute provides for the service in any twelve months of a five year period to be treated as continuous service, if the employee has more than 240 days of service.

4. Section 25B(2) of the I D Act provides in pari materia deeming provision, wherein a workman who is not in continuous service for a period of one year or six months is deemed to be in continuous service, if he has, during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of calculation, 240 days service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the same in Surendra Kumar Verma and others v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, New Delhi and Another, 1980 (4) SCC 443 held so:-

“The provision appears to be plain enough. S.25F requires that a workman should be in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer before that provision applies. While so, present S.25B (2) steps in and says that even if a workman has not been in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year, he shall be deemed to have been in such continuous service for a period of one year, if he has actually worked under the employer for 240 days in the preceding period of twelve mo