Disposed

Jagannath Vishwanathrao Tathod v. the Municipal Coucnil, through Its Chief Officer, Achalpur and Another

Bombay HC10 Sept 2024WP/1856/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily-wage employee challenged Industrial Court order denying pensionary benefits. Relying on earlier Bombay High Court rulings upheld by the Supreme Court, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that one-half of daily-wage service be counted for pensionary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; one-half of daily-wage service counted for pensionary benefits; payment within four months.

Jagannath Vishwanathrao Tathod Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 3 915.wp1856.2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1856 OF 2018

¶4

Jagannath Vishwanathrao Tathod

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Municipal Council, Achalpur, Dist. Amravati and anr.

¶7

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶9

Mr. R.R. Gour, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Deepali Sapkal, AGP for respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 10.09.2024.

¶11

This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Industrial Court, Amravati in Complaint (ULP) No.19/2012.

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue involved in the present petition about non-payment of pensionery benefits including gratuity is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 07.12.2018 in Writ Petition No.9134/2016 and the judgment of

¶13

Prity

¶14

2 / 3 915.wp1856.2018

¶15

Single Bench of this Court dated 25.01.2023 in Writ Petition No.5060/2018.

¶16

It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 07.12.2018 in Writ Petition No.9134/2016. It is submitted that order impugned be set aside and relief as sought by the petitioner be granted.

¶17

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that appropriate order may be passed.

¶18

I have perused the orders passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.07.2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).40358/2019. The issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court. The order impugned is therefore, set aside.

¶19