This dismissed a writ petition filed for execution of an order under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Rules. It directed that proceedings regarding the setting aside of the ex parte order be decided expeditiously.
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.
3609.13wp.sxw
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 3609 OF 2013
Vishwas Pandurang Ugale. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Department of Cooperation and another. ... Respondents.
Nitesh Patil for the petitioner.
Ms.J.B.Kurup, BPanel AGP for the State.
Shivaji A. Masal for respondent No.2.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATED : 21st July 2014.
P.C. :
Heard.
2 The petitioner seeks execution of the order dated 29th April 2011 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 against the respondent Liquidator. The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 (rule 90). The petitioner is entitled to adopt such of the method to execute this order. The counsel for the petitioner submits that so far the respondent Liquidator has not paid the amount granted by the Controlling Authority.
2/2 3609.13wp.sxw
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..
Vishwas Pandurang Ugale
The Department of Co-operation
The Respondent (Liquidator)
NARESH H. PATIL
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
