Dismissed

Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd., Nashik and Others v. Maroti S/O Vithoba Sayam

Bombay HC21 Jun 2024WP/2227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employer challenged the Industrial Court's order directing payment of a gratuity shortfall to a former watchman. The High Court found no interference warranted, relying on an earlier Industrial Court finding that the employee had worked continuously from 19.02.1981, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 43-2227-24.odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2227/2024

¶4

Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal Development Corporation & others

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Maroti S/o Vithoba Sayam

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. D.P. Bhongade, Advocate for petitioners Mr. Ankit Vastani, Advocate for Respondent

¶9

CORAM: N.R. BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATED : 21^st JUNE, 2024

¶11

This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 12.01.2024, passed by the learned Industrial Court in Appeal (PGA) No.9/2022.

¶12

The respondents herein had filed an application under Section 7(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the Controlling Authority (Labour Court) alleging that considering his length of service, he was entitled to get Rs.5,26,420/towards gratuity, however, he was paid Rs.3,65,910/- only. It was, therefore, prayed that petitioner be directed to pay him the difference of amount of Rs.1,60,510/- with interest. The application was partly allowed, however, the claim in respect of difference of amount of Rs.1,60,510/was rejected.

¶13

2 43-2227-24.odt

¶14

By the impugned order, the learned Industrial Court has allowed the appeal filed by the present respondents against the order of Controlling Authority and directed the present petitioner to pay the amount of difference as sought by the respondents. Hence, this petition.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Controlling Authority on the ground that the respondent has not produced any cogent evidence to show that he was in continuous service from 19.02.1981 to 30.6.2021. It is submitted that the learned Industrial Court has, however, committed an error in allowing the appeal on the ground that petitioner has not produced any cogent evidence that services of the respondents were terminated on account of misconduct. It is submitted the learned Industrial Court has wrongly shifted the onus on the petitioner. It is submitted that order impugned therefore cannot be allowed to stand.

¶16

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the judgment and order of the Industrial Court

¶17

3 43-2227-24.odt

¶18

dated 10.10.2006 in Complaint (ULPA) No.93/2006, filed by the present respondent against the petitioner. The relevant findings in the said judgment reads thus :

¶19

“The complainant has proved that he is continuously working with the respondents from 19.02.1981 till today as daily wage Watchman and from 1987 to 1995 he had worked on consolidated salary with them.”

¶20

In view of the above findings, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

MP Deshpande

Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd., Nashik and Others v. Maroti S/O Vithoba Sayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd., Nashik and Others v. Maroti S/O Vithoba Sayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Gopal S/O Ranilal Bhutada Vs Dr. Jasmin W/O Gopal Bhutada

Sanju S/O. Bhuta Sakom vs the District Collector, Amravati and Others

Sureshchand S/O Shrinarayanji Sharma vs Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-Op. Society Limited, (Multistate), Nagpur

Premendersingh Rachhapalsingh Oberoi and Another Vs Nalinibai W/O Bhaskar Vanjare (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Chandrashekhar Bhaskar Vanjare and Ors.

Suresh Wasudeorao Raut and Another vs Kisanrao Ramchandra Mali and Others

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp. through Divisional Controller, Nagpur vs Sheikh Sikandar Sheikh Sardar and Another