the respondents retire from service, their Privilege Leaves cannot be counted and the respondents cannot claim the benefit of 300 paid leaves from the petitioner as well as the State. Learned counsel further submits that the gratuity amount is always payable to an employee after his retirement and till date, the respondents are serving with the Government and as such their gratuity amount cannot be calculated. Lastly, he argued that the gratuity amount has not been calculated by the Tribunal because no specific affidavit has been submitted by the petitionerinstitution in this regard and consequently, no such affidavit was submitted by the respondents, hence the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the respondents. 4. Lastly, he argued that as per the provisions contained under Section 21 of the Act of 1989, whenever there is a dispute between the management and its employees with respect to any service condition, an application can be submitted in the “prescribed manner” to the Tribunal for adjudication of the same. Learned counsel submits that no application in the prescribed manner was submitted by the respondents, therefore, under these circumstances, the application submitted by the respondents was not maintainable. Hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is legally not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tagore Bal Niketan Madhyamik Vidyalaya versus State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 (1) WLC Raj. 19; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs.
