The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Appellate Authority to pay gratuity and accrued interest to the petitioner based on a previous precedent established for similarly situated parties involving the same respondent.
Petitioner to be paid gratuity and accrued interest by the Appellate Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp7226-04
rpa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7226 OF 2004
H. N. Karandikar .. Petitioner V/s. The Cantonment Board, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. S. M. Dharap for the Petitioner. Mr. K. J. Presswala i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla for the Respondents.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 9th AUGUST, 2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter for Payment of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by the Petitioner. The challenge in the Petition was to the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972.
2 wp7226-04
clearly observed in those Petitions and decided against the Petitioner. In those Petitions, the Petitioners were Respondent No.1. The Petitioner herein is entitled for a gratuity as per order dated 23rd October, 2002, which was in Petitioner's favour along with interest. Respondent No.1 pursuance to the provisions of law, deposited all the amount of Rs.1,01,011/ before the Appellate Authority.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to gratuity based on previous decisions against similar parties for the same respondent.
Whether the amount deposited by the respondent needs to be paid to the petitioner with accrued interest.
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petitions 518 and 519 of 1994Referred¶10
Writ Petitions 518 and 519 of 1994
2 provisions across 2 enactments
H. N. Karandikar
The Cantonment Board, Pune
Anoop V. Mocha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
