Judgment :- Subhash B. Adi, J. This Writ Petition is by the Corporation questioning the order of the second respondent dated 4.9.2007 produced at Annexure-C confirmed by the order of first respondent dated 31.3.2008 produced at Annexure-E. 2. Respondent No.3 filed a claim petition before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (in short referred to as `the Act') interalia stating that, he joined the Corporation service on 19.12.1966 and retired on 31.1.2004 and has completed 37 years of continuous service and he was drawing Rs.7,315/- basic pay and was also getting Rs.4,023/-dearness allowance. However, Corporation has paid Rs.2,38,621/- towards the gratuity as against Rs.2,70,655/- and claimed that he is entitled for Rs.32,034/- with interest. 3. Thesaid claim petition was opposed by the Corporation interalia stating that there was a break in service for 3 years 11 months 7 days. In this regard, corporation had produced attendance register showing that the respondent had remained absent and has not completed 240 days during 1972, 1973, 1977 and 1981 and even evidence was also led by the Corporation. 4. The Controlling Authority considering the evidence held that there is no break in service under the provisions of the Act and held that the respondent is entitled for balance of gratuity amount of Rs.33,987/- with 10% interest. 5. Said order of the Controlling Authority was called in question before the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority considering the grounds of appeal and the contentions held that, there is no legal evidence to prove the break in service of 3 years 11 months 7 days and concurred with the findings of the Controlling Authority. These two orders are called in question by the Corporation. 6. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the Corporation led the evidence before the Controlling Authority and in the evidence, it is stated that, during the years 1972, 1973, 1977 and 1981, the respondent has not completed 240 days continuous service and to this effect, the attendance register and leave account extract were produced to show that, for certain period, the respondent had remained absent. In this regard, she strongly relied on the Gratuity Regulations of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and submitted that, these regulations are framed in terms of the settlement arrived between the union and the Corporation and the Regulations provided for better gratuity than what is provided under the provisions of the Act and in terms of the Regulations, the gratuity is required to be paid. She relied on clause-4 of the Regulations, which reads as under: "4 Conditions of Eligibility: (1) Minimum qualifying service, for becoming eligible to gratuity shall, subject to the provisions of subregulation (2), be 15 years continuous service in the Department. EXPLANATION I. Service rendered by a transferred employee under the B.TC., B.S.R.TC., or the Hyderabad Road Transport Department shall be counted, for put poses sub-regulation (1). EXPLANATION 2. In computing the said period, the period of extraordinary leave and suspension which is not treated as on duty shall be excluded. (2)In the case of an employee who dies while in service or who is prematurely retired due to permanent physical or mental disability the minimum qualifying service shall be five years. (3)The amount of gratuity may be disallowed or reduced if the service of the employee has not been thoroughly satisfactory. " Relying on the said clause, learned Counsel further submitted that, in terms of Explanation 2, in computing the continuous period, the extra-ordinary leave and suspension cannot he treated as on duty and shall be excluded. She further relied on the calculation sheet attached to the regulations and pointed out that, the calculation sheet shows as to how calculation of gratuity is determined, that is by deducting non-qualifying services like, leave without allowance, suspension, apprentice service and period of deputation. She further submitted that it is based on this calculation, gratuity will be paid. If the gratuity is not sought under the regulation, then the workmen will be entitled to gratuity under the provisions of the Act. The Corporation is paying more gratuity than what is provided under the Act and the regulations must be considered even for the purpose of determining the continuous service. Relying on regulations, she further submitted that, the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority despite having the evidence before them, both the authorities have failed to look into the same and erroneously have granted gratuity for the period for which the respondent was not entitled. Relying on regulations, she further submitted that, the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority despite having the evidence before them, both the authorities have failed to look into the same and erroneously have granted gratuity for the period for which the respondent was not entitled. It is also submitted that, employee can choose any one of the scheme and not both, either he should go under the Gratuity Act or under Regulations. If his claim is under regulations, break in service is to be determined in terms of the Regulations alone. 7. Sri. Basavaraj, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 --workman submitted that, Section 2-A of the Act requires an express order to be passed for the purpose of determining the break in service. Without there being any order, question of deducting of alleged break in service does not arise. He submitted that the evidence produced by the Corporation before the Controlling Authority does not prove the requirement under Section 2-A of the Act and it cannot be termed as break in service. 8. Sri. Jagadeesh Mundargi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that, Regulations will not prevail over the provisions of the Act. Provisions of the Act will prevail over the regulations. Section 2-A of the Act specifically requires that, for treating break in service, an express order required to be passed in accordance with the standing order or the regulation governing the employees of the establishment. In any other case the evidence will not amount to break in service. He further submitted that, the regulations only provide for payment of gratuity and the conditions of eligibility. If the Corporation wants to deduct any period, it has to pass an order by following the principles of natural justice. He relied on unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.993/2006 dated 3rd October 2007 and submitted that, in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court considering the standing orders provided for break in service has held that, in case of break in service, the employer must follow the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity to the workman and then pass an appropriate order. 9. In the light of the contentions raised by both parties, the only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, "What is continuous service?" 10. 9. In the light of the contentions raised by both parties, the only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, "What is continuous service?" 10. "Continuous service" is defined under Section 2-A of the Act, which reads as under: "Section 2-A. Continuous Service -- For the purposes of this Act, - (1) anemployee 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 seasonal 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 thesaid period of one year, if the employee during the period of twelve calendar 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 an employee employed below the ground in a mine or in an establishment which works for less than six days in a week; and (ii) twohundred and, forty days, in any other case; (b) for the said period of six months, if the employee during the period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than - (i) ninety-fine days, in the case of an employee employed below the ground in a mine or in an establishment which works for less than six days in a week; and (ii) onehundred and twenty days, in any other case; (i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any other law applicable to the establishment; (ii) he has been on leave with fill wages, earned in the previous year; (Explanation -- For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which an employee has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which – (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and (iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave: so, however that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks. (3) Where an employee, employed in a seasonal 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 for such period if he has actually worked for not less than seventy-five per cent of the number of days on which the establishment was in operation during such period. " Section 2-A sub-Section (1) provides for treating the absence as break in service. However, such break in service must be evidenced by an order in accordance with the standing order, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment. No doubt, Section 2-A sub-Section (2) requires that, employee to work not less than 240 days in a year to avail the benefit of gratuity for the said year. However, if the management wants to treat any period of service as break in service so as to deny the gratuity for that period, then it cannot by showing him as absent or on leave, etc., treat the same as break in service, it has to pass an order to the knowledge of the workman and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Under clause-4 of the Regulations, the conditions of eligibility are stated and explanation-2 states that, in computing the continuous period, extra-ordinary leave and suspension be treated as not in service or break in service, however, to exclude the said period, an order under Section 2-A of the Act is necessary. Regulations only provide for payment of gratuity and eligibility. If the Corporation really wants to avail the benefit of break in service in terms of clause-4, then it has to pass appropriate orders. Merely by deducting the period in its service registers, it cannot treat the same as break in service. 11. The Payment of Gratuity Act being a social legislation and social security for an employee after retirement, resignation, whenever he becomes eligible and being a beneficial legislation, compliance with requirement under Section 2-A is mandatory. Merely by deducting the period in its service registers, it cannot treat the same as break in service. 11. The Payment of Gratuity Act being a social legislation and social security for an employee after retirement, resignation, whenever he becomes eligible and being a beneficial legislation, compliance with requirement under Section 2-A is mandatory. While considering the scope of Section 2-A of the Act, this Court relying on the decision of the Apex Court, has observed that, even if the Standing Order provides for break in service, such break in service has to be by an express order and not merely on the ground of standing order and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench and also in view of the provisions of Section 2-A of the Act, I am of the opinion that, continuous service means, continuous service rendered by the workman minus break in service for which the management has passed appropriate orders. If there is no express order passed in terms of Section 2-A of the Act, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court, such deduction is not permissible. Both the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority considering the evidence produced by the corporation have found that there is no express order showing the break in service in accordance with law. Since the Corporation has failed to show the break in service in conformity with the provisions of Section 2A of the Act, the said deduction of period is illegal and in view of the same, claimant is entitled for the balance of gratuity as claimed. Rightly both the authorities have rejected the contention of the Corporation. 12. In the light of the above discussion, I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, Writ Petition fails and same is dismissed.