Sorry, Suresh; no employer can substitute his own interpretation with the ratio decidendi of a case law and decide the issue in utter disregard of a High Court's ruling. If one dares to do so, he would be penalised with cost and the burden of interest for the unpaid period by the Controlling Authority under the PGA,1972 later if a claim is filed by the aggrieved employee. As the Madras High Court judgment is as a result of an interpretative analysis of the existing definition of the term ' continuous service ' u/s 2-A of the Act, it requires no amendment. Moreover, this judgment is in sync with the interpretation of the similar term u/s 25-B of the ID Act,1947 by the Supreme Court earlier in several cases. In case of refusal by the employer to pay gratuity, the poster can certainly get it with interest by filing a claim under the Act.