D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The award dated 28.11.1996 passed in case No. A/94 by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972, allowing the gratuity to the workman and the order dated 29.6.1998 passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972. In Appeal No. 12 of 1997 are under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman having not been worked for continuously for five years, he is not eligible for gratuity under Section 4 of the said Act. According to him the workman was a casual employee and he was never worked for 240 days in a year.
(3.) This point was urged before the controlling authority as well as the appellate authority. Both the authorities had disbelieved the case of the petitioner and had concurrently come to a finding that the workman was employed for long period of 20 years and that he has satisfied the test of continuous five years service for the purpose of being eligible for payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the said Act.;