JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.U.T.Mishra, learned Megha Chitalia, learned Asst. Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.09.2020, of Controlling Authority (respondent No.2) in Gratuity Case No.55 of 2019 and the order dated 29.06.2021 of the Appellate Authority (respondent No.3) in Appeal No.126 of 2020. 3. The facts in brief as stated in the petition are as under: (i) Petitioner is a Limited Company. Respondent No.1 – workman was working with the Company as a Maintenance Supervisor in Craft Department from 28.11.1991. It is case of the petitioner that since the Craft Department was closed and the work of supervisor was not required, the workman was retrenched after following due procedure w.e.f.15.04.1999. (ii) The workman raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Kalol which was registered as Reference (LCK) No.276 of 1999. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court by award dated 26.04.2004 directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman in service with 45% backwages. (iii) The award dated 26.04.2004, was challenged by the petitioner company by filing Special Civil Application No. 864 of 2005. This Court by decision dated 27.12.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 864 of 2005, modified the award and confirmed the order of reinstatement and quashed the direction of backwages. This Court further directed the petitioner to reinstate workman on the same or equivalent post within a period of one month. (iv) The workman was reinstated w.e.f. 24.02.2014. (v) Against the order of learned Single Judge, quashing grant of back wages, the workman preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1146 of 2014 wherein this Court by order dated 29.01.2015 partly allowed the appeal and directed that the workman would be entitled to backwages by protection of his pay from 25.01.2013 till the actual reinstatement on 24.02.2014. The said amount was directed to be disbursed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal, was partly allowed. (vi) It was case of the petitioner that the workman was gainfully employed with Sadbhav Engineering Limited from 21.12.2006 and therefore preferred application seeking review/recall of the order dated 29.01.2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1146 of 2014 on the ground that incorrect statement on oath was made by the workman that he was not gainfully employed. (vi) It was case of the petitioner that the workman was gainfully employed with Sadbhav Engineering Limited from 21.12.2006 and therefore preferred application seeking review/recall of the order dated 29.01.2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1146 of 2014 on the ground that incorrect statement on oath was made by the workman that he was not gainfully employed. (vii) Considering the averment in the application, by order dated 29.01.2015 the recall application was allowed, restoring Letters Patent Appeal to its original file. Upon restoration, the workman chose not to appear and Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution by order dated 25.09.2018. (viii) The respondent workman after reinstatement tendered his resignation w.e.f 01.06.2019. Said resignation was accepted and he was relieved from service w.e.f. 14.06.2019. Upon resignation, he preferred application for payment of gratuity. (ix) The workman filed Form No. N claiming gratuity for a period of 28 years. His last drawn salary was Rs.6750/-. Thus, the total amount of gratuity came to Rs. 1,09,200/-. The petitioner appeared and filed their reply. The controlling authority directed the petitioner to pay the respondent workman gratuity of Rs.1,09,038/- along with interest @10% by order dated 07.09.2020. (x) Against the order dated 07.09.2020, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority by order dated 29.06.2021 confirmed the order of controlling authority, aggrieved by which the present petition is filed. 4. Heard Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner company, Mr. T.R.Mishra, learned advocate for respondent No.1 workman and Ms. Megha Chitalia, learned Asst. Government pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 5. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner company submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 28.11.1991 as Maintenance Supervisor in the Craft Department. The said unit was closed and, therefore, after paying retrenchment compensation, the services of the workman were discontinued w.e.f. 15.04.1999. The workman accepted the retrenchment compensation. He was paid all his dues and accordingly the amount of Rs. 19,466/- was paid. The said amount was inclusive of gratuity, retrenchment compensation etc. and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity for the said period. Further in the dispute raised for his alleged illegal termination registered as Reference (LCK) No.276 of 1999, the Labour Court, Kalol directed the petitioner to reinstate workman in service with 45% backwages by award dated 26.04.2004. The said amount was inclusive of gratuity, retrenchment compensation etc. and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity for the said period. Further in the dispute raised for his alleged illegal termination registered as Reference (LCK) No.276 of 1999, the Labour Court, Kalol directed the petitioner to reinstate workman in service with 45% backwages by award dated 26.04.2004. The said order came to be partly confirmed by order dated 27.12.2014 in Special Civil Application No.864 of 2005. In the order dated 27.12.2014, reinstatement was upheld, however, the grant of backwages was set aside, aggrieved by which, the workman preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1146 of 2014. Letters Patent Appeal No.1146 of 2014 was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and, therefore, the order of this Court dated 27.12.2014 in Special Civil Application No.864 of 2005 is confirmed whereby only reinstatement has been awarded and backwages has been set aside. He submitted that prior to filing of Letters Patent Appeal, the workman made false affidavit stating that he was not gainfully employed, which is contrary to the evidence on record. From the letter dated 12.02.2015 of petitioner company addressed to Sadbhav Engineering Limited, it is clear that he was working with the latter from 21.12.2006 to 14.06.2014 and on that ground the review was allowed. However, the workman chose not to appear in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1146 of 2014. This shows the conduct of the workman. He submitted that therefore, the workman is not entitled to claim continuity of service and, therefore, the application for payment of gratuity made in Form No. N stating that he had worked for 28 year is erroneous. Therefore, the controlling authority has erred in granting gratuity by counting 28 years of service and taking last drawn salary at Rs.6750/-. The controlling authority also granted interest @ 10%. Said order has been confirmed by the appellate authority, which has also fallen into error. 5.1. Learned advocate further submitted that since workman was working with some other company from 21.12.2006 to 14.06.2014, the order of the controlling authority counting 28 years of service is erroneous. The service rendered by the workman is also evident from provident fund slip and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination could it be contended that the workman worked for 28 years. The service rendered by the workman is also evident from provident fund slip and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination could it be contended that the workman worked for 28 years. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the controlling authority and appellate authority being erroneous deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.2. Further, in the order of this Court dated 27.12.2012 it was observed that demand draft of Rs.19,000/- towards gratuity and retrenchment compensation etc. was paid and, therefore, once the gratuity amount is paid and accepted by the workman, it is not open for him to claim the gratuity till the date of his resignation. He, therefore, submitted that the petition may be allowed and the order of controlling authority and appellate authority may be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent workman submitted that the workman was appointed in the year 1991 and he was terminated illegally on 15.04.1999. The termination was challenged by raising the dispute registered as Reference (LCK) No.276 of 1999. The Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.276 of 1999 passed the award dated 26.04.2004 directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.1 in service with 45% backwages. The award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with backwages was challenged by the petitioner and this court only quashed the backwages awarded by the Labour court to the extent of 45%. Thus, the order of reinstatement is confirmed by the Court and stand taken in the contempt or Letters Patent Appeal is not required to be considered. Upon reinstatement, the workman tendered his resignation effective from 01.07.2019, therefore, without going into any other aspect the service of the workman is to be taken into consideration from 28.11.1991 (i.e. date of appointment) till 01.07.2019 (i.e. date of resignation). He further submitted that when reinstatement is awarded as per settled legal position, continuity of service is to follow. In support, he relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Sarvan Ahir Rao Vs. Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 (SC) 1776 . He thus submitted that there is no error in the order of controlling authority dated 07.09.2020 and the order of appellate authority dated 29.06.2021. Both the authorities have considered the service of the workman from 15.04.1999 to 01.07.2019. 7. Considered the submissions. Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 (SC) 1776 . He thus submitted that there is no error in the order of controlling authority dated 07.09.2020 and the order of appellate authority dated 29.06.2021. Both the authorities have considered the service of the workman from 15.04.1999 to 01.07.2019. 7. Considered the submissions. For the issue under consideration, whether workman would be entitled for gratuity for the period from 28.11.1991 (date of appointment) till his resignation effective from 01.07.2019 or otherwise, revisitation of following facts would be necessary. (i) As referred herein above, undisputedly, the workman was appointed as maintenance supervisor with the petitioner company w.e.f. 28.11.1991. His service was terminated w.e.f. 15.04.1999. For this, the workman preferred Reference before the Labour court, Kalol which came to be partly allowed by an award dated 26.04.2004, wherein the petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent workman in service with 45% backwages. (ii) The contention on behalf of the petitioner that the workman was not terminated but was retrenched on account of closure of unit and was paid retrenchment compensation along with gratuity and other benefits, in the opinion of this Court, is of no consequence, because these facts have been appropriately considered by the Labour Court in the award dated 26.04.2004. Further, in Special Civil Application No.864 of 2005 filed by the petitioner company, this Court considered all these facts and thereafter by decision dated 27.12.2012, confirmed the order of reinstatement and only set aside grant of 45% backwages. (iii) In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkishore Sarvan Ahir Rao vs. Kosan Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is held that once the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement and even if in the operative part of the award, the Labour Court has not specifically denied the continuity of service, it is to be presumed that the Labour Court has granted continuity of service. Applying the same principle in the present case, the respondent was awarded continuity of service by the Labour Court which has been confirmed by this court in the decision dated 27.12.2012 in Special Civil Application No. 864 of 2005. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, as contended by the respondent, there is continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, as contended by the respondent, there is continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. (iv) With regard to the contention that the workman had preferred Letters Patent Appeal and he chose not to remain present on account of false statement is also of no consequence, because the said LPA was filed by the workman against non-grant of 45% back wages. This has nothing to do with reinstatement awarded by the Labour Court and confirmed by this court in SCA No. 864 of 2005. (v) Further, the workman was reinstated on 24.02.2014, after initiation of proceedings under provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Thus, from the date of decision in SCA 864 of 2005. i.e. 27.12.2012 to the date of reinstatement i.e. 24.02.2014, there was inaction on part of petitioner company. (vi) Now on the submission that, for the period 21.12.2006 to 14.06.2014, the workman was gainfully employed and, therefore, the said period cannot be considered for determination of gratuity and thereby the controlling authority as well as the appellate authority has erred in counting the continuous service is also of no help to the petitioner. LPA was filed by the workman challenging denial of back wages. Therefore, dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal on account of non-prosecution, in the opinion of this Court, is of no relevance when the workman was awarded reinstatement. In any view of the matter, the order of reinstatement has not been disturbed. (vii) The controlling authority for determination of gratuity considered the last wages drawn by the workman and the award of the Labour Court dated 27.12.2012 confirmed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.864 of 2005. The Controlling Authority counted the service of the petitioner from the date of joining i.e. 28.11.1991 till the date of resignation i.e 01.07.2019 and thereby counted 28 years of continuous service. In the opinion of this Court, there is no error in the order of controlling authority dated 07.09.2020 and therefore, no interference is required. The Controlling Authority counted the service of the petitioner from the date of joining i.e. 28.11.1991 till the date of resignation i.e 01.07.2019 and thereby counted 28 years of continuous service. In the opinion of this Court, there is no error in the order of controlling authority dated 07.09.2020 and therefore, no interference is required. (viii) The order of controlling authority dated 07.09.2020 has been confirmed by appellate authority by order dated 29.06.2021 where also the service of the petitioner has been counted continuously for the period of 28 years from 28.11.1991 (date of joining) till 01.07.2019 (date of resignation) and, therefore, there is no error in the order of the appellate authority also. (ix) On the aspect of non – reasoned order of the appellate authority as contended by learned advocate for the petitioner, it is noticed that the appellate authority has considered the Form No. I filled up by the petitioner as also the order of Reference Court dated 26.04.2004 and the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No.864 of 2005. (x) In view of the above, there is no error in the order passed by the controlling authority dated 07.09.2020 in Gratuity Case No.55 of 2019 and the order of appellate authority dated 29.06.2021 in Appeal No.126 of 2020. 8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the gratuity as directed by the controlling authority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.