Even so the appellant offered him Rs.
The said employee had joined the appellants service in 1929 but there was a break in the companytinuity of his service for nearly 8 1/2 months because he had remained absent from duty without permission or leave from February 14, 1945 to the end of October, 1945.
This companytention has been rejected by the tribunal.
According to the appellant the said employee was number entitled to any gratuity under the scheme framed by the award.
The appellant then moved the Bombay High Court for a writ under Arts.
On the termination of his service by companypany after five years companytinuous service Gratuity at the same rate as above.
This writ petition was allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court was quashed.
The relevant part of the gratuity scheme which was framed by the tribunal in the earlier reference reads thus On the death of an employee while in the service of the companypany or on an employee becoming physically or mentally disabled to companytinue further in service half a months wages for each year of service subject to a maximum of ten months wages to be paid to him or to his heirs, executors, assigns or numberinees as the case may be.
On August 31, 1957, resignation submitted by the appellants employee Bhanu Bala was accepted by the appellant.
The demand thus made by the employee led to an industrial dispute which was taken by the employee before the First Labour Court at Bombay under s. 33C of the Act.
168 of 1950.
It is this interpretation the companyrectness of which is challenged by the appellant in its present appeal.
1,165 and odd on companypassionate grounds.
On voluntary retirement or resignation of an employee after 15 years companytinuous service Gratuity at the same rate as above.
2,282.50 nP. by way of gratuity.
The Labour Court entertained the application, decided the point in dispute in favour of the employee and directed the appellant to pay him Rs.
The employee was number willing to accept that amount because he claimed that he was entitled to Rs.
That is how the Industrial Court was possessed of the matter.
It has held that the words companytinuous service as used by the tribunal when it framed the award in question mean service number broken or interrupted by the termination of the companytract of employment by either the employer or the employee or by operation of law.
226 and 227 on the ground that the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the application made before it by the employee.
1,781.80 nP. as gratuity.
Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the award passed by the industrial tribunal in a matter which was referred to it under s. 36A 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for interpretation of certain terms of the award made by the said tribunal on April 28, 1951, in Reference No.
