Allowed

Babu P. Amin v. M/S. S. v Pikale and Co. and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2024WP/10931/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employee's gratuity claim was rejected on technical grounds over whether he was terminated or abandoned service. High Court held cessation date was admitted and entitlement to gratuity for services rendered up to that date did not depend on mode of exit, set aside both orders below, and directed payment of gratuity with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 10 April 2018 and 14 February 2019 set aside; Respondent directed to pay gratuity with 6% p.a. interest from 06 June 2014 within 08 weeks.

Babu P. Amin Vs M/S. S. v. Pikale and Co. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

kishor 1/2 8 WP 10931 of 2019 (C).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10931 OF 2019

¶5

Babu P. Amin ...Petitioner Versus M/s. S. V. Pikale And Co. And Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, a/w. Mr. Rupesh Dubey, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Swapnil Ravindra Patil, for Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 16 FEBRUARY 2024.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

By this petition Petitioner challenges Order dated 14 February 2019 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ( Gratuity Act ) rejecting Appeal (PGA) No.40 of 2018 thereby confirming Judgment and Order dated 10 April 2018 passed by the Controlling Authority in Application (PGA) No.04 of 2016.

¶11

I have heard Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner and Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for Respondents.

¶12

It must be observed at the very outset that the reason for rejection of Petitioner’s application for payment of gratuity as recorded by the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority is rather bizarre. There is

¶13

kishor 2/2 8 WP 10931 of 2019 (C).doc

¶14

admittedly cessation of services of the Petitioner with the Respondent w.e.f. 28 August 2010. Whether Petitioner is terminated or whether he has abandoned services, in my view, becomes irrelevant for the purpose of payment of gratuity. Petitioner is willing to accept cessation of his services with the Respondent w.e.f. 28 August 2010. He does not wish to claim anything in respect of period after 28 August 2010. All of that he desires to claim is that the gratuity in respect of services rendered by him up to 28 August 2010. In my view, he should be paid gratuity as per the provisions of the Gratuity Act. Proving this grievance of the Petitioner, Competent Authority has gone on the cessation and taken a highly technical view that the case of the Petitioner is not covered under provisions of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act. I have find the Orders of Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority totally unsustainable. Petitioner has rendered services with the Respondent and he does not wish to claim any benefit in respect of period after 28 August 2010. In that view of the matter, he must be paid gratuity in respect of services up to 28 August 2010.

¶15

Accordingly, Writ Petition succeeds. Orders dated 10 April 2018 passed by the Competent Authority and 14 February 2019 passed by the Controlling Authority are set aside. Respondent is directed to pay to the Petitioner gratuity, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 06 June 2014, in respect of services rendered up to 28 August 2010 within a period of 08 weeks from today.

¶16

With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶17

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶18

Digitally signed KISHOR by KISHORVISHNU VISHNU KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2024.02.17 14:35:13 +0530

Babu P. Amin v. M/S. S. v Pikale and Co. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu P. Amin v. M/S. S. v Pikale and Co. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anusaya Mahadeo Koli(Since Decd. Thr.Lrs) Dattatraya Mahadev Koli and Anr. Vs Rohini Rupchad Jamadar(Since Decd. Thr. Lrs) Dipak Rupchand Jamadar and Ors.

Sandeep Eknath Patil Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Amarjit T. Patel vs M/S. Holistic Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Jayram Lakhma Gaikwar and Ors. Vs Shri. Ashok Ramchandra Gaikar

Godrej Appliances Ltd. vs Rashtriya Kamgar Sanghatana and Anr.

M/S National Co. Operative Consumers Federation of India Ltd. vs M/S Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd.