Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in P.G.(A)14/95, dated 09.09.2003 and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had worked as a driver of the third respondent transport company, from 1971 to 1987, till he was denied employment by the third respondent. Since, the third respondent has not given the benefits due to the petitioner, he had filed the petition before the second respondent, under the payment of Gratuity Act,1972 in P.G.No.70 of 1989. By an interim order, dated 010. 1992, in P.G.No.70 of 1989, the second respondent had directed the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.14,711.53 to the petitioner as Gratuity amount, since his last drawn salary was Rs.1,500/-. The petitioner has further stated that the third respondent had preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent remanded the matter to the second respondent, as certain aspects had not been considered by the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent had dismissed the petition by an order, dated 09.08.1994, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to Payment of Gratuity. Hence, the petitioner had preferred an appeal in P.G.(A).No.14/95 before the first respondent. The first respondent, by an order, dated 25.03.1996, ordered the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition in W.P.No.17606 of 1996 had been filed before this Court. By an order, dated 04.09.2001, this Court had allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the first respondent to give an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared before the first respondent and had given evidence. However, he was not cross examined by the third respondent. The petitioner had worked for 17 years without any blemish and he had not abandoned the job. Therefore, he was eligible for the Payment of Gratuity. The impugned order of the first respondent is contrary to law. The first respondent, had passed the order without following the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 04.09.2001, made in W.P.No.17606 of 1996. The first respondent had erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner had abandoned the service. Therefore, he was entitled for the payment of Gratuity, as prayed for. 3. The first respondent, had passed the order without following the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 04.09.2001, made in W.P.No.17606 of 1996. The first respondent had erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner had abandoned the service. Therefore, he was entitled for the payment of Gratuity, as prayed for. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get the payment of gratuity since he had stayed away from his duty without intimation and thereafter, he had not joined the duty. The appellate authority, by its order, dated 09.09.2003, had held, after the remand, that the employee had abandoned his duty on his own accord and hence, he was not entitled to get the gratuity. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and in view of the records available, this Court is of the considered view, that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 09.09.2003, made in P.G.A.No.14 of 1995. It is clear that the petitioner had admitted that he had left the service on his own accord from the month of December, 1987 and therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay the gratuity, as prayed for by the petitioner. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to prove that he was denied employment by the third respondent. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also dismissed.