JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Mill Manager on 27.08.1968 in the 3rd respondent-Bank. Later, admittedly, he continued as a Junior Clerk when disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and he was compulsorily retired from service. The punishment imposed on him was challenged before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The Labour Court has, in I.D. No. 79 of 1997, found that the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement is not proper and hence, set it aside. The management was directed to reinstate the workman in service with 50% back-wages. The management obviously did not reinstate the workman, but challenged the Labour Court award before this Court, which culminated in Exhibit P2 judgment. In Exhibit P2, this court found that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and, hence, interfered with the award of the Labour Court insofar as setting aside the order of granting 50% back-wages. The reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court was, however, upheld. While the matter was pending before this Court, the workman attained the age of superannuation, i.e., on 31.08.2007. 2. Since the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation, the petitioner sought for retirement benefits from the management. The management, by Exhibit P3, found that the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits as on 22.03.1995. Exhibit P3 was again challenged before this Court. This Court found that the claim emanating from an adjudication made by the Labour Court has to be prosecuted under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reserving such liberties, the matter was closed by Exhibit P4 judgment. 3. The petitioner then approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By Exhibit P5, the said authority found that the last drawn salary of the applicant, as has been claimed by him, was Rs. 13,041. The management raised a challenge from Exhibit P5 which was allowed by Exhibit P6, modifying Exhibit P5 order. By Exhibit P6 the workman was found to be entitled to gratuity only on computation made with reference to the last drawn pay on the date of his termination. The petitioner challenges Exhibit P6 order of the Appellate Authority. 4. It has to be noticed that the petitioner was directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court with 50% back-wages. By Exhibit P6 the workman was found to be entitled to gratuity only on computation made with reference to the last drawn pay on the date of his termination. The petitioner challenges Exhibit P6 order of the Appellate Authority. 4. It has to be noticed that the petitioner was directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court with 50% back-wages. The management did not care to make the reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court; but, however, challenged the same before this Court. This Court also, after consideration of the matter, interfered with the award of the Labour Court only to the extent of granting back-wages. The order of the Labour Court was upheld and the petitioner is entitled to have been reinstated right from the date of order of the Labour Court itself. It is to be specifically noticed that while disposing of the writ petition filed by the management, this Court in Exhibit P2 specifically noticed that the workman will be entitled to continuity of service. Exhibit P2, in any event, has become final, inter parties. The petitioner definitely cannot raise a claim for wages from the date of award of Labour Court herein, since the present proceedings are only with respect to the gratuity claim. The challenge is against the order of the Appellate Authority, modifying the order of the Controlling Authority. If continuing service is reckoned, the gratuity computed cannot be with reference to the wages last received by the workman on his termination. It has to be computed as on the last date of his service, i.e., the date of superannuation. 5. The fact that the petitioner was not reinstated and did not draw wages after the order of the Labour Court till the date of his superannuation cannot be put against him. Definitely it is to be deemed as the petitioner was reinstated at the point of time of the Labour Court award and necessary increments and other benefits granted periodically. The petitioner's claim, as is revealed from the orders of the lower authorities, is that the petitioner would have drawn a pay of Rs. 13,041 at the time of his retirement. There was absolutely no evidence produced by the management before the Controlling Authority to refute the aforesaid claim. The petitioner's claim, as is revealed from the orders of the lower authorities, is that the petitioner would have drawn a pay of Rs. 13,041 at the time of his retirement. There was absolutely no evidence produced by the management before the Controlling Authority to refute the aforesaid claim. The management could have very well produced the pay drawn by a Junior Clerk of the respondent-Bank at that point of time, to refute it. There is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of the Controlling Authority, since no evidence was adduced by the management either before the Appellate Authority or before this Court. The Appellate Authority has merely proceeded on the assertion made by the management, without any material to substantiate it. In the above circumstance, the order of the Appellate Authority, Exhibit P6, is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the gratuity computed as per Exhibit P5. The same shall be paid within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. If the amounts are not paid within the time stipulated herein, the defaulted amount shall carry statutory interest and though the respondent-Bank would have the liability to pay the same, the interest levied after the period granted by this Court shall be recouped from the officer who committed the default in making payments as directed herein. The writ petition is allowed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.