JUDGMENT Vasanti A. Naik, J. (Oral) - By this Writ Petition the Horticulture Officer Taluka Fruit Nursery, Tiwasa, Dist. Amravati has challenged the orders of the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act directing the petitioners to pay gratuity to the tune of Rs. 21,735/with simple interest @ 10 Per cent to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. 2. Subhadrabai was working as a labourer on daily wages with the petitioner from 5.3.1982. According to the petitioners, the services of Subhadrabai were availed as and when required. It was the case of Subhadrabai in the proceedings filed by her before the Labour Court that her services were orally terminated by the order dated 1.6.2003, whereas it is the case of the petitioners that Subhadrabai had abandoned the services of the petitioner. The question whether Subhadrabai''s termination was illegal and whether she was entitled to be reinstated in service was referred to the Labour Court on 7.4.2004. Subhadrabai expired on 23.3.2008. After her death, her legal heirs filed an application on 1.1.2009 under the payment of Gratuity Act against the petitioners. The Controlling Authority had by the order dated 30.10.2007 allowed the application filed by the respondents the legal heirs of Subhadrabai and directed the petitioners to pay gratuity to them. The order of the Controlling Authority was challenged by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners by the order dated 23.8.2010. The orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority are challenged by the petitioners in the instant petition. 3. Shri. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submitted that the authorities had failed to consider that deceased Subhadrabai had not continuously worked with the petitioners for a period of 240 days in a calender year. It is submitted that only an employee who has continuously worked for a period of not less than 5 years is entitled to gratuity on his superannuation, on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. It is submitted that only an employee who has continuously worked for a period of not less than 5 years is entitled to gratuity on his superannuation, on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. It is submitted that after the Controlling Authority allowed the application filed by the respondent for payment of gratuity the reference IDA No. 20 of 2004 filed was decided by the Labour Court and the Labour Court has held that Subhadrabai had abandoned the services and since it was not the case of termination the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 would not apply to her case. It is submitted that since Subhadrabai had abandoned the services, her legal heirs were entitled to claim gratuity. It is stated that there was an inordinate delay in filing the application for payment of gratuity but the said aspect was not dealt with by the authorities under the payment of Gratuity Act. 4. On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioner and on a perusal of the provisions of the payment of Gratuity Act as also the award passed in the reference IDA No. 20 of 2004, it appears that the authorities under the payment of Gratuity Act were not justified in holding that respondents were entitled to receive the gratuity payable to Subhadrabai. It appears from the award passed by the reference Court in IDA No. 20 of 2004 that Subhadrabai had abandoned her services since the year 2004. The finding of facts in that regard appears to have attained finality. The Controlling Authority has not referred to any material on record to record a finding that Subhadrabai had rendered continuous services for not less than five years. The Controlling Authority only observed that Subhadrabai was working with the petitioners from 1994 to 2003. It is held by the Kerala High Court in the case of A. Gopinathan Nair v. N. Radha Bai reported in 1988 (72) FJR 366 that an employee abandoning his services is not entitled to gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of the Gratuity Act. It is held by the Kerala High Court in the case of A. Gopinathan Nair v. N. Radha Bai reported in 1988 (72) FJR 366 that an employee abandoning his services is not entitled to gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of the Gratuity Act. It is also held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Anand Bharti and Others v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2001 (91) FLR 429 that as the employee had abandoned the services, he would not be able to get any benefit of his past services and gratuity would not be payable to him. Since Subhadrabai had abandoned the services, her legal heirs were not entitled to claim gratuity. 5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.