Writ Petition No. 98 of 2012. Case: Chairman cum Managing Director, Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs Pramod Gulabchand Baid and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 98 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.M. Gordey, Senior Advocate and Tushar Darda, Advocate and For Respondents: M.M. Sudame, Advocate |
| Judges | A. S. Chandurkar, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 8 |
| Judgement Date | December 23, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. S. Chandurkar, J.
-
By following the procedure analogous to provisions of Order 47 Rule 8 of the Order of Civil Procedure Code 1908, the learned Counsel for the parties have been re-heard on the question as regards entitlement of respondent No. 1 to receive amount of gratuity despite the fact that he has been dismissed from service after holding departmental enquiry.
-
On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted by Shri A.M. Gordey, learned Senior Counsel that a dismissed employee was not entitled to receive gratuity. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the said Act to urge that as respondent No. 1 had been dismissed from service, he would not be covered by provisions of Section 4(1)(a) to (c). These clauses contemplate entitlement for gratuity on superannuation, retirement, resignation, death or disablement. Reference was also made to provision of Section 4(6) of the said Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y.P. Sarabhai v. Union Bank of India and another (2006) 5 SCC 377 and especially para 11 thereof. Reliance was also placed on the judgments in Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank v. Ramanbhai Patel 2011(1) CLR 871, and Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Regional Labour Commissioner 2003 (2) LLN 939. It was, therefore, submitted that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to receive any amount of gratuity.
-
Shri M.M. Sudame, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 then submitted that respondent No. 1 could not be deprived of the amount of gratuity though he had been dismissed from service. He referred to provisions of Section 2(q) of the said Act and urged that dismissal of an employee would amount to "retirement" for the purposes of said Act and, therefore, under provisions of Section 4(1) (b) of the said Act, the respondent No. 1 was entitled to receive gratuity. He submitted that there was no order passed directing forfeiture of the amount of gratuity for any damage or loss caused by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. It was not the case that respondent No. 1 was guilty of any riotous behaviour. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Garment Cleaning v. The Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 673 and Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Mills Limited and others (2007) 1 SCC 663. He submitted that the latter judgment arose under the same Rules under which departmental enquiry had been held against respondent No. 1. He also referred to judgment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial