Judgment :- 1. The public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2010 in DLCB- 1/PGA/Appeal/ CR-50/08-09 Annexure-B of the 1st respondent Appellate Authority, has presented this petition. 2. The 3rd respondent an employee of the petitioner – Road Transport Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2005, was entitled to gratuity by computing the quantum either in terms of the KSRTC Servants Gratuity Regulations, for short Regulations or the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for short Act, whichever is beneficial. Petitioner reckoned 27 years and 6 months as the period of continuous service, by excluding 7 years, 3 months and 22 days from out of 34 years, 9 months and 29 days, alleging absence, leave without salary, suspension and others and accordingly, computed Rs. 1,70,500/- as gratuity, in terms of the Regulations, from out of which was deducted Rs. 54,350/- on the premise that the 3rd respondent was liable to pay towards discharge of a loan extended by the State Bank of Mysore. HSR Layout, while in service. The 3rd respondent aggrieved by the exclusion of the period of service and the deduction towards discharge of loan, filed an application on 3.6.2007 under Rule 10 of the payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, before the 2nd respondent – Controlling Authority, numbered as ALCB-4.PGA/CR-74/2007-08, whence the petitioner Corporation arraigned as party respondent, on notice entered appearance and filed a counter statement. Interalia, contending that there was a delay in filing the application and that the computation of gratuity under the Regulation being more beneficial disentitled the retired employee to re-determination of the gratuity or its difference .The Controlling Authority framed two issues, first of which related to whether there was cause shown to condone the delay and the second as to whether the claim for redetermination of gratuity was justified. Parties entered trial and recorded evidence both oral and documentary. The controlling Authority having regard to the evidence both oral and documentary, answered the first point in favour of the workman on the premise that on 15.11.2005, Rs 10,313/- was remitted by the Corporation as second installment of gratuity and thereafter, despite workman’s fervent requests with the Authorities to redetermine the gratuity when not responsive, submitted a claim in Form-I on 14.5.2007 and thereafter, filed an application on 3.6.2007 before the Controlling Authority, and accordingly held was satisfactory explanation for the delay. As regards the other point for consideration, the Controlling Authority declined to accept the petitioner’s plea to exclude 7 years, 3 months and 22 days from out of the total of 34 years, 9 months and 29 days towards period of absence, leave without salary, suspension and others, in the absence of material records, so declined to accept as a legal deduction Rs. 54,350/-towards discharge of loan with the State Bank of Mysore, HSR Layout and redetermined Rs. 2,09,071/- as gratuity by computing the quantum in accordance with the Act, while under the Regulation the computation of gratuity was Rs. 2,18,550/-, which was beneficial to the workman. Effecting a deduction of Rs. 1,16,150/- and Rs.10,313/- since paid to the 3rd respondent, directed payment of Rs. 1,02,400/- with interest at 10% per annum from 31.5.2005, by order dated 15.1.2009 Annexure – A. 3. That order when carried in appeal by both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, were clubbed together and by common order dated 22.5.2010 Annexure-B, of the 1st respondent, were dismissed. Hence, this petition, by the corporation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 7 years, 3 months and 22 days being the break in service and not ‘continuous service’ within the definition of the said term under section 2 (A) of the Act deserves exclusion for computation of gratuity, since the 3rd respondent was absent, suffered orders of leave without salary, suspension and other while in service. It is next contended that the 3rd respondent having not discharged the debt due to State Bank of Mysore, hence the deduction of Rs. 54,350/- 5. It is next contended that the 3rd respondent having not discharged the debt due to State Bank of Mysore, hence the deduction of Rs. 54,350/- 5. Section 2 (A) of the Act defines ‘continuous service’ thus; (1) An employee 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) ****** (3) ****** Thus, the requirement of Section 2 (A) of the Act in order to establish interrupted service so as to treat it as break in service is the orders passed in that regard treating the period of absence as break in-service, in accordance with the standing orders, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment. In that case, there is not titre of evidence to establish orders passed by the Authorities treating as break-in-service the period of suspension, leave without salary, absence from service and others, since mere absence, per se, is not break-in service, breach falling within the definition of the term ‘continuity of service’ under the Act. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings, and conclusions arrived by the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority under the Act, declining to accept the plea to treat that period as break in service, and deny a computation of gratuity by including the said period as ‘continuous service’. 6. The contention that there was a delay in filing the application and that no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming to condone the delay, in my opinion, deserves to be rejected at the threshold. The proviso to Rule 10 of the payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 inheres in the Controlling Authority a jurisdiction to accept any application filed under Sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant, after the expiry of the specified period. The proviso to Rule 10 of the payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 inheres in the Controlling Authority a jurisdiction to accept any application filed under Sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant, after the expiry of the specified period. The period specified in Sub-rule 1 is ninety days of the occurrence of the cause for the application in Form-N to the Controlling Authority. The 3rd respondent’s testimony of fervent requests to the petitioner after the second installment of Rs. 10,313/- towards gratuity was paid on 15.11.2005 and filing Form-I on 14-05-2007 for proper computation of gratuity, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, when nothing precious was done, the controlling authority accepted as sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the application in Form - N and accordingly answered the point of consideration in favour of the 3rd respondent. That finding of the Controlling Authority in the fact situation cannot be faulted with. 7. The last contention over justification to deduct and discharge the loan with the State Bank of Mysore, HSR Layout, is frivolous, Sub-sections 1 and 6 of Section 4 of the Act when read, in conjunction, the only irresistible conclusion is deduction by way of forfeiture to the extent of damage or loss caused by the employee during his service, from the gratuity of that employee, whose service is terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the employer; and the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited; if the service of such employee is terminated for his riotous disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part; or if the service of such employee is terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. In the instant case, it is not that the service of the 3rd respondent was terminated for any of the aforesaid reasons, so as to withhold gratuity on the wholly or partially so as to fall within the Subsection 6 of Section 4 of the Act. That being the factual position, deduction of Rs. 54,350/- allegedly towards discharge of the loan extended to the 3rd respondent by the State Bank of Mysore, HSR Layout cannot be held to be a illegal. 8. That being the factual position, deduction of Rs. 54,350/- allegedly towards discharge of the loan extended to the 3rd respondent by the State Bank of Mysore, HSR Layout cannot be held to be a illegal. 8. Right to gratuity is a statutory right and cannot be withheld under any circumstance, but for the exception enumerated in Sub-section 6 of Section 4 of the Act. It is elsewhere said that “Gratuity” as the term itself suggests is a gratuitous payment extended to an employee on retirement or discharge. In addition to other retiral benefits payable to the employee. In BurhanpurTapti Mills Limited Vs. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Mazdoor Sangh ( AIR 1965 SC 839 ), it was held that gratuity is a lump sum payment considered necessary for an orderly and humane elimination from the industry of superannuated or disabled employees, who but for such retiring benefits would continue in employment even though they function inefficiently. Yet again in D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) though in the context of pension, nevertheless it was held that gratuity is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice by providing economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing, corresponding to ageing process and when, one falls back on savings. Such payment cannot be withheld unless specifically permitted by any statutory provision. 9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles and applying the same to the facts of this case, indisputably the petitioner-Corporation illegally deducted the amount from out of the gratuity payable to the 3rd respondent, which did not have the permission under the Act much less the Regulation, since no provision under the Regulation is shown to invest such a power in the petitioner. Petition devoid of merit, is rejected in limine.