JUDGMENT : T. Ravindran, J. Prayer in W.A.(MD) No.1429 of 2019) : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 01.07.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) No.4933 of 2014, on the file of this Court, confirming the order passed by the first respondent in PGA No.6 of 2010 dated 12.12.2011, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in PG No.95 of 2008, dated 14.09.2009. W.A.(MD) No.1430 of 2019: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 01.07.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) No.4934 of 2014, on the file of this Court, confirming the order passed by the first respondent in PGA No.7 of 2010 dated 12.12.2011, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in PG No.94 of 2008, dated 14.09.2009. 1. Aggrieved over the common order, dated 01.07.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.4933 and 4934 of 2012, the present writ appeals have been laid by the appellant. 2. W.P.(MD) Nos.4933 and 4934 of 2012 had been laid by the appellant to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders, passed by the first respondent, in P.G.A.Nos.6 and 7 of 2019, dated 12.12.2011, confirming the orders passed by the second respondent in P.G.Nos.95 and 94 of 2008, dated 14.09.2009, and to quash the same. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is found that the third respondent in the present writ appeals had preferred the applications seeking for the payment of gratuity amount, to which they are entitled to as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on account of their superannuation on the footing that they have put in the requisite number of years of continuous service from the date of their appointment and accordingly, putting forth that they are entitled to claim the gratuity amount, preferred the necessary applications to the second respondent. 4. The appellant has preferred the counter contending that the applications preferred by the third respondent had not been laid within the stipulated period and they have not adduced acceptable cause for the condonation of the delay in the filing of the applications and further disputed the claim of the third respondent that they had put in the requisite number of years of continuous service as putforth by them in their respective applications and thereby, disputed their claim of entitlement to the gratuity amount as putforth in their applications. 5. 5. Before the second respondent, the third respondent, in support of their cases, have examined themselves as P.W.1 in their respective proceedings and also marked Exs.P1 to P3 and the appellant, in support of their defence version, have examined R.W.1 and marked mainly the proceedings of the Management dated 30.04.1999 as Ex.R1 and it is found that on an appreciation of the abovesaid materials placed on record by the respective parties and the submissions made, finding that the third respondent had been inducted into the employment of the appellant’s Corporation even prior to 30.04.1999 as evidenced from the abovesaid proceedings themselves and further, noting the admissions of R.W.1 that they have the possession of the requisite documents evidencing the period of employment of the third respondent in their Corporation and further noting that despite the availability of the necessary documents pointing to the period of employment of the third respondent in the Corporation, the appellant having failed to produce the same for consideration and noting that the proceedings of the Management/Corporation dated 30.04.1999, disclose the induction of the third respondent in the Corporation even prior to 30.04.1999, as putforth by the third respondent and thereby, determining that the third respondent had put in continuous years of service in the appellant’s Corporation and thereby, they being entitled to claim the gratuity amount, resultantly, the second respondent determined that the third respondent are entitled to the gratuity amount as determined by it respectively and thereby, directed the appellant to pay the same to the third respondent with interest as determined by it and accordingly, disposed of the applications praying for the gratuity amount preferred by the third respondent. 6. Impugning the same, the appellant had preferred appeals before the first respondent and the first respondent also, after considering the submissions projected by the respective parties, noting that the parties had agreed for the disposal of the petitions laid by the third respondent for the condonation of the delay as well as the main petitions simultaneously and accordingly, noting that the second respondent had accordingly disposed of the both applications on that basis, determined that the second respondent had rightly disposed of the petitions filed for the condonation of the delay as well as the main petitions for the payment of the gratuity amount. Further, the first respondent had also, noting that the third respondent had claimed to have been in the employment of the appellant’s Corporation for continuous years of service and thereby, entitled to the gratuity amount and further, noting that the appellant Corporation, despite admitting that they have the custody of the documents pointing to the employment of the third respondent in their Corporation and the appellant having failed to place the same for consideration, accordingly, determined that without any basis, the appellant Corporation had disputed the claim of the payment of the gratuity amount sought for by the third respondent and on an analysis of the records placed by the parties, noting that the same had been properly considered and appreciated by the second respondent and the second respondent had correctly determined the gratuity amount, to which the third respondent are entitled to, resultantly, concurred with the determination of the second respondent and dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellant. 7. Impugning the same, the present writ petitions had come to be laid by the appellant. 8. As could be seen from the order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing the writ petitions, it is found that the only point that had been canvassed before the learned Single Judge was with reference to the calculation of the interest on the gratuity amount, to which the third respondent are entitled to, on the footing that the respondents 1 and 2 had failed to consider the period of absenteeism of the third respondent in the Corporation and accordingly, the contention has been placed before the learned Single Judge that the same should be taken into consideration before directing the appellant to pay the gratuity amount, to which they are entitled to. On that basis, it is found that the learned Single Judge had confirmed the order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 and holding that the appellant would not be necessitated to pay the interest for the period during which the third respondent had not attended the duty, accordingly, determined that the said period could be excluded by the appellant and accordingly, directed to refix the amount of gratuity amount payable to the third respondent with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and accordingly, disposed of the writ petitions. Challenging the same, the present writ appeals have been preferred by the appellants. 9. Challenging the same, the present writ appeals have been preferred by the appellants. 9. On a perusal of the materials available on record, when it is found that as determined by the respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent have claimed to have put in continuous service in the appellant’s Corporation over and above the requisite period entitling them to seek the gratuity amount as per law and the respondents 1 and 2 having determined the abovesaid claim of the third respondent in the proper perspective based on the materials placed on record by the respondents, particularly, the proceedings of the appellant dated 30.04.1999, disclosing that the third respondent had been in the service of the appellant Corporation even prior to 30.04.1999 and accordingly, they have put in continuous years of service and though the appellant Corporation had disputed their claim of continuous years of service, however, the appellant having failed to substantiate the same, despite having the custody of the requisite documents pointing to the same and on the other hand, the witness examined on behalf of the appellant having admitted that they have the custody of the requisite documents pointing to the employment of the third respondent in the Corporation and the third respondent had not been issued with any orders of break in service and further, having admitted that they have not produced any document to show that the third respondent are disentitled to claim the gratuity amount on the ground that they have not put in continuous period of service as stipulated in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in such view of the matter, it is found that the respondents 1 and 2 had rightly determined that the third respondent are entitled to seek the gratuity amount on account of their continuous period of service in the appellant’s Corporation for the requisite period as stipulated under law and thus, it is found that the respondents 1 and 2 had rightly determined the gratuity amount, to which the third respondent are entitled to with interest. In such view of the matter, the arguments putforth by the appellant’s counsel that the respondents 1 and 2 had failed to appreciate the materials placed on record in the proper perspective, particularly, failed to note that the third respondent had failed to establish their continuous period of service as claimed by them, on the other hand, when the appellant despite having the custody of the requisite documents pointing to the defence version, they having failed to produce the same before the concerned Authorities and thereby, the concerned Authorities having raised an adverse inference against the appellant correctly and in accordance with law, in such view of the matter, the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the respondent 1 and 2 have not properly determined the period of continuous service put in by the third respondent in the appellant’s Corporation entitling them to claim the gratuity amount, as such, cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, it is found that no argument on that aspect has been projected before the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions. On the other hand, the contention had been mainly focused by the appellant only with regard to the payment of interest, to which the third respondent are entitled to, particularly, during the period when they had not reported for duty. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had directed that the period of absence from duty could be excluded by the appellant Corporation, while directing the payment of gratuity amount to which the third respondent are entitled to. In such view of the matter, the arguments putforth by the appellant’s counsel that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the defence version projected by the appellant Corporation in the right perspective and not considered the materials placed on record properly, as such, cannot be accepted in any manner. On the other hand, on a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is seen that the learned Single Judge has considered the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 and found that nothing is warranted to interfere with the same and thereby, has concurred with the same and accordingly, disposed of the writ petitions in the manner as discussed above. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the third respondent, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2018 (2) SCT 332 . The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decision are also taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 11. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed in the writ petitions and resultantly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.