Writ Petition No. 11915 of 2015. Case: Balvant Mohan Badve Vs Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 11915 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.V. Barde, Advocate and For Respondents: V.S. Bedre, Advocate |
| Judges | R. V. Ghuge, J. |
| Issue | Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 2A, 4 |
| Judgement Date | February 01, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
R. V. Ghuge, J.
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
-
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04/09/2015 delivered by the Appellate Authority / Industrial Court, Ahmednagar under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
-
The petitioner submits that he had joined duties with the respondent on 07/09/1985 and had superannuated on 01/04/2007 after reaching the age of retirement. There is no dispute as regards the continuous service of the petitioner.
-
The petitioner further submits that after completing his tenure of employment till retirement as a Civil Engineer, he was issued with a charge sheet on 24/07/2007 which was after his superannuation. This Court, by its judgment dated 10/12/2015 in Writ Petition No. 6795/2013, allowed the petition and concluded that the respondent could not initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after his retirement. The judgment of the Industrial Court dated 09/07/2013 dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 5/2008 filed by the petitioner was set aside, the complaint was allowed and the impugned order of recovery dated 05/01/2008 was quashed and set aside.
-
The petitioner submits that he had filed Application (PGA) No. 32/2008 before the Controlling Authority claiming gratuity from 07/09/1985 till 01/04/2007. Necessary details were set out in the application form. The only defence taken by the respondent for opposing the claim of gratuity was that the petitioner was overage by one year at the time of joining duties. The proposal for regularizing his services was forwarded after his retirement and the same is still pending. The competent authority, by its judgment dated 09/03/2015, allowed the application of the petitioner and granted him the gratuity considering his last drawn wages. Interest @ 10% was also granted.
-
Mr. Barde submits that the respondent/Corporation preferred Appeal (PGA) No. 4/2015 which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 04/09/2015. The judgment of the Controlling Authority was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for deciding the claim afresh. Grievance is that gratuity is payable to an employee after he completes 5 years in continuous employment. Whether he is a "temporary" or a "permanent" employee is not the criteria for deciding whether he is entitled for gratuity. Mr. Barde, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
-
Mr. Bedre, learned Advocate for the respondent/Corporation has strenuously supported the impugned judgment. Contention is that the very entry of the petitioner in service on...
To continue reading
Request your trial