ORDER This writ petition is by the Corporation, questioning the order of the second respondent dated 22-11-2007 produced at Annexure-C confirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 15-7-2008 produced at Annexure-E. 2. Respondent 3-workman filed a claim petition under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 inter alia alleging that, he was appointed as a Conductor on 4-12-1967 and thereafter he was promoted as a Traffic Controller and attained the age of superannuation on 31-8-2004 and by that time, he had completed 38 years of continuous service and claimed that, he was drawing Rs. 12,010/- as a basic salary. Corporation was required to pay Rs. 2,83,860/- by way of gratuity, however, Corporation has paid only Rs. 2,27,952/-. 3. This claim petition was opposed by the Corporation on the ground that, there was a break in service of 1 year 10 months 5 days and further, the respondent 3-workman was appointed as a Badli Conductor from 4-2-1967 to 30-12-1972 and during this period, he had not continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year and not entitled for any gratuity. The Controlling Authority found that, the material produced by the Corporation do not prove either that the workman had not worked for 240 days continuously or there was any break in service and held that the workman is entitled for balance of gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 55,908/-. 4. This order was called in question by the Corporation in an appeal. The Appellate Authority also considering the material placed before the Controlling Authority found that the said order does not call for interference. 5. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the service register part 6 was produced before the Controlling Authority to show that the respondent was a Badli Conductor, despite the material produced before the Controlling Authority, same is not looked into. It is also submitted that, from the records, the Corporation has found that the respondent-workman had not worked for a period of 1 year 10 months 5 days and further submitted that, in order to claim gratuity, the workman must have worked at least for 240 days continuously in a year as per Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and that having not been proved by the workman, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity. 6. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent 3-workman submitted that, Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act requires an appropriate order to be 6assed to prove break in service and also to show that the respondent workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in a year and having not produced the said material before both the authorities, the contention of the Corporation is not acceptable. 7. It is not in dispute that the claimant was appointed as Badli Conductor on 4-12-1967 and retired on 31-8-2004, in between if there was any break in service, Corporation should have passed an appropriate order evidencing break in service in terms of Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 8. Insofar as Badli Conductor is concerned, no doubt, Badli Conductor is engaged as and when his services are required, but none of the documents produced by the Corporation show that, the respondent workman had not at all worked for 240 days in a year. The service register does not prove as to how many days the workman has worked. In such circumstances, in the absence of any evidence to prove the same, the only inference that could be drawn is that, the workman had worked for 240 days continuously in a year and entitled for gratuity. 9. In the light of the same, I am of the opinion that the orders do not call for interference. 10. However, it is now brought to my notice that, the Controlling Authority immediately after disposal of the appeal disburses the amount without even waiting for reasonable period to enable the Corporation to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority and the Controlling Authority. It is also stated that, even before the copy of the order of the Appellate Authority is made available, the amount in deposit before the Controlling Authority is disbursed. This hurried disbursement would affect the interest of the Corporation/Management. 11. In this case, it is stated that, the copy of the Appellate Authority was made available only on 1-9-2008, however, the Controlling Authority had disbursed the amount on 18-8-2008. 12. It is true that, in many cases, it is found that, even before the Corporation secures copy of the order from the Appellate Authority, the Controlling Authority has disbursed the amount, it would be difficult in case the Corporation succeeds in the matter. 12. It is true that, in many cases, it is found that, even before the Corporation secures copy of the order from the Appellate Authority, the Controlling Authority has disbursed the amount, it would be difficult in case the Corporation succeeds in the matter. In view of the above, the Controlling Authority must ensure that the Corporation is served with copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and reasonable time is given to the Corporation and without waiting for reasonable time, if the amount is disbursed, the interest of the Corporation/Management will be vitally affected. I am of the opinion that, the Controlling Authority to take into consideration the supply of copy of the order of Appellate Authority and after giving reasonable time to party, it should take step to disburse the amount, thereby protecting the legal right of the Corporation/Management to challenge the order. Copy of this order be supplied to the Government Advocate to communicate the same to the Authority. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.