Allowed

Chandrabhaga Machindra Dudhade, L.Rs. Manchindra and Others v. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth

Bombay HC23 Jul 2014WP/1963/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench High Court writ petition challenging an appellate authority order remanding gratuity claims to the controlling authority. The Court held the remand was unsustainable, quashed the impugned order, and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal afresh within one year, disregarding delay objections.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; order dated 27/11/2012 by appellate authority quashed; directed to decide appeals within one year.

Chandrabhaga Machindra Dudhade, L.Rs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1962.13wp

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1962 OF 2013

¶5

Gayabai Fakira Chitalkar, Age: 70 years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Digras, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar and others.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, Through its Registrar. ...Respondent

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 1963 OF 2013

¶11

Chandrabhaga Machindra Dudhade, Since deceased through L.Rs. Machindra Murlidhar Dudhade, Age: 69 years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Khadambe Budruk, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar and others. ...Petitioners

¶12

versus

¶13

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, Through its Registrar. ...Respondent

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2013

¶16

Babanbai Bajirao Pawar, Age: - years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Digras, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar and others. ...Petitioners

¶17

versus

¶18

1962.13wp -2-

¶19

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, Through its Registrar. ...Respondent

¶20

WITH

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO. 2002 OF 2013

¶22

Manik Narayan Mane, Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Dhamori, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar and others. ...Petitioners

¶23

versus

¶24

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, Through its Registrar. ...Respondent

¶25

WITH

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 2014 OF 2013

¶27

Shankar Kesu Vairal, Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Sade, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar and others. ...Petitioners

¶28

versus

¶29

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, Through its Registrar. ...Respondent

¶30

..... Mr. Parag V. Barde, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.S. Shelke, Advocate for respondent in W.P. Nos. 1962/2013,1995/2013 & 2014/2013. Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent in W.P. Nos. 1963/2013 & 2002/2013.

¶31

1962.13wp

¶32

-3-

¶33

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE ,J.

¶34

DATED : 23RD JULY, 2014

¶35

PER COURT :

¶36

. These petitions are at the behest of employees of respondent-Agricultural University questioning the order dated 27/11/2012 passed by appellate authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in its appellate jurisdiction.

¶37

The petitioners preferred applications before the controlling authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for brevity) praying therein directions to non-applicant University to make payment of gratuity in view of the applications. The applications came to be moved in 2005.

¶38

The said applications were objected by respondentUniversity. The objections which were raised that there is delay in moving applications for claiming gratuity, services of petitioners have come to an end in 2000, whereas applications are moved after five years. Second objection that was sought to be raised that petitioners have not completed 240 days in a particular year.

¶39

1962.13wp -4-

¶40

The controlling authority vide its order dated 25/08/2011 has ordered respondent herein to pay gratuity. The controlling authority while dealing with claim made by the empoyees has also negated the claim of such employees who have not completed 240 days.

¶41

Feeling aggrieved by same, present respondent preferred appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by its judgment dated 27/11/2012 has allowed appeals and remanded matters back to the controlling authority for the purpose of taking decision on the issues raised therein afresh.

¶42

Mr. P.V. Barde, learned Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order of remand passed by appellate authority has taken me through the observations made by the controlling authority in its order directing the respondent to pay gratuity. He has invited attention of this Court to the reasons recorded by appellate authority in the order of remand which is impugned in the present petitions and has sought to canvass that the reasons cited in the order impugned by the appellate authority are vague in nature. He submits that in fact it is open for the appellate authority to re-appreciate the entire set of evidence in the light of pleadings made before the controlling authority. He submits that the appellate authority is also armed with

¶43

1962.13wp -5-

¶44

power to order for correction in the claim if the controlling authority has reached to a wrong conclusion. He submits that the order of controlling authority is set aside by the appellate authority on the ground that issue of delay is not decided by controlling authority. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, in fact, issue as regards delay is already looked into by the authority by reaching to the conclusion that claim is admissible. He submits that Act cast burden on respondent herein to pay gratuity on its own and failure thereof, it is not open for respondent authority to raise defence of delay for rejecting claim of gratuity. He has placed reliance upon the observations made by this Court in the matter of H. Jayarama Shetty vs. Sangli Bank Ltd., reported in 2005(3) BCR 10 .

¶45

In addition to above, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the controlling authority has rightly gone into entire set of facts. However, by vague order, the appellate authority has reversed the said finding and remanded the matter back for fresh hearing. He submits that the reasons cited in the order passed by the appellate authority are too technical and appellate authority itself should have evaluated the claim made by the petitioners for payment of gratuity.

¶46

While countering the above referred submissions,

¶47

1962.13wp

¶48

-6-

¶49

Mr. A.S. Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent-University has sought to canvass that by way of defence, written statement, the issue as regards completion of 240 days, applicability of Gratuity Act, limitation was raised before controlling authority. He submits that since controlling authority has failed to look into same, appellate authority was right in remanding the matters back to controlling authority for fresh decision. He submits that order impugned passed by appellate authority is just and proper as the appellate authority has appreciated issues such as variation in Judgment and signature of competent authority, non mention of date of Judgment,non framing of issues etc.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the respondent-University further submits that in case, matter is remanded back to controlling authority, the parties to the present petitions would get fresh opportunity to lead their evidence in support of issues to be recast in view of provisions of sub-section 5 of Section 7 of the Act. He submits that as controlling authority has not gone into issues raised before it and no cross examination was permitted by the controlling authority, the appellate authority has rightly remanded the matter back.

¶51

In view of law laid down by this Court in the matter of

¶52

1962.13wp -7-

¶53

Principal, Krishi Vidyalayaa vs. Dwarkabai Haribhau Hingane reported in 2009(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 1052 , the issue about applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act is no more under dispute to the educational institution.

¶54

Having considered rival contentions of the parties and after having perused the order passed by the controlling authority, it is noticed that controlling authority has taken into account the claim submitted before it for the payment of gratuity. The controlling authority has also taken into account the written statement filed by respondent alongwith chart depicting the days for which, each claimant has worked, to demonstrate that whether such employee has completed 240 days in a given year or not. The controlling authority has also dwelt upon the affidavit of the parties and parties themselves have voluntarily refrain from leading any evidence in the form of cross examination. The controlling authority, as such, in my opinion, was right in accepting affidavits which are submitted by the present petitioners and respondent in support of claim. The decision on the part of controlling authority in asking the parties to the present petition not to lead cross examination is not brought to the notice of the Court. If parties voluntarily chose not to cross examine otherside, controlling authority for the said cause cannot be blamed. In any case, observation of the appellate authority to that effect, in my

¶55

1962.13wp -8-

¶56

opinion, is not sustainable, as it was open for the appellate authority to look into the evidence submitted by the parties in the light of pleadings and appreciate the same and reach to proper conclusion.

¶57

The appellate authority in stead of re-appreciating evidence in the light of pleadings which was open to it has chose to remand the matters back to the controlling authority on technical grounds. The order passed by the appellate authority is too vague to appreciate. The appellate authority has also placed reliance upon the judgment which, in my opinion, hardly in applicability to issue involved in the present writ petitions.

¶58

It is noticed that claims put forth before the controlling authority as are determined relegated back from 2000. In that view of the matter, it will be appropriate to relegate the parties to the controlling authority for deciding the claim afresh as benefit of social legislation is denied to the petitioners for last 14 years. The above referred fact is lost sight by the appellate authority. The claim of the employees for gratuity can not be denied on the ground of delay in claim having regard to the aim and object of the Act [ Transport Manager, Kolhapur Municipal Transport Undertaking vs. Pravin Bhabhutlal Shah and others, 2004(4) ALL MR 297 ].

¶59

In that view of the matter, the order of remand passed by

¶60

¶61

1962.13wp -9-

¶62

the appellate authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In fact, this appears to be fit case wherein appellate authority has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. In that view of the matter, the order dated 27/11/2012 passed by the appellate authority which is impugned in the present petitions is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that the appellate authority should hear the parties afresh in the light of orders passed by the controlling authority and pleadings put forth before the said authority.

¶63

If required, it is open for the appellate authority to permit the parties to lead evidence including that of, for the purpose of carrying out corrections in the calculations of claim put forth by the party and adjudicated by controlling authority. It is expected of the appellate authority that as the claim of the petitioners are not adjudicated since year 2000, in my opinion, it will be appropriate to direct appellate authority to decide appeals within period of one year from the receipt of the order of this Court.

¶64

In view of observations made above, writ petitions are allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]

¶66

Tupe/ 23.07.14

Chandrabhaga Machindra Dudhade, L.Rs. Manchindra and Others v. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhaga Machindra Dudhade, L.Rs. Manchindra and Others v. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The President Hari Om Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Neknoor Dist Beed and Ors. Vs Sukhdeo Namdeo Zirpe and Ors.

Syed Abdul Rafiquoddin Syed Rahimoddin Vs Mohd. Abdul Shaikh Ahmad

Pravin Kundlik Narwade Vs Eshwarsing Fakirsing Tatu

Kantabai Kisanrao Padle Vs Kisanrao Sarjerao Padle and Another

Kashibai Hari and Others. Vs Shankarlal Jamanalal Dhoot and Others.

Shankar Kesu Vairal and Others Vs Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth