ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-District Cooperative Central Bank being aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2005 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh in Gratuity Appeal No. 303 of 2004, whereby the Labour Commissioner has directed the petitioner to pay the gratuity to the respondent taking into account his service from 6.11.1956 to 10.10.1997 and also imposed penalty for delayed payment as per the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent was appointed on 6.11.1956 and as per the rules, he was retired on 31.7.1996. Thereafter, his service period was extended for two years. This order was set aside by the High Court vide Annexure P/3, dated 3.9.1997. Therefore, according to the petitioner the gratuity is payable to the respondent taking into consideration the service period up-till 31.7.1996 and not up-till 10.10.1997. It is proved that the order of extension was quashed by the High Court but nonetheless from perusal of Annexure P/3, it is clear that the respondent was in service till 10.10.1997. Therefore, his service is to be counted till 10.10.1997 for the purpose of payment of gratuity. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during this period, the respondent was on leave and, therefore, the period should not be counted in service. This contention is also without basis in view of Section 2A (1) of the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads as under: 2A (1). Continuous service -- For the purpose of this Act, an employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has, for that period, been in un interrupted 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." 5. From perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is clear that the employee shall be entitled to count the period including the service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave but the period in respect of absence for which an order is passed during his absence break in service shall not be included. No such order is on record and, therefore, the respondent is entitled for computation for his service till 10.10.1997 for the purpose of payment of gratuity. 6. So far as the question of penalty is concerned, undisputedly, the payment is not paid within the stipulated period and, therefore, the learned Court has rightly imposed the penalty. 7. Hence, petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay gratuity due and penalty, if any, any due to the respondent within a period of three months from today.