Dismissed¶5

Kilash Maruti Raut Nee Patil v. the Secretary Govt. of India Under Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2025WP/3367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972; Section 4 gratuity entitlement; claim rejected for want of documentary proof; sweeper on daily wages, Chembur Post Office; Controlling Authority / Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai order dated 29/09/2021; Appellate Authority order dated 11/04/2022 confirmed; writ petition dismissed by Bombay High Court (M. S. Karnik, J.); liberty to file fresh gratuity claim with fresh material; contentions kept open; termination allegedly 19/09/2000; retirement claimed 2007; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to make a fresh claim before the Controlling Authority on the basis of fresh material, to be considered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law; all contentions kept open; no costs. ¶5

Kilash Maruti Raut Nee Patil vs the Secretary Govt. of India Under Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, claiming appointment on 20/12/1992 as a Sweeper on daily wages and more than five years of continuous service, was entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶15

Court's answer

The Appellate Authority held against the Petitioner because he was unable to produce any documents in support of his gratuity claim; even in the writ petition there is no material to substantiate the claim that he has put in more than 5 continuous years of service.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

On the materials as they stand, it is not possible to grant any relief to the Petitioner.

¶4

Key takeaways

To protect the Petitioner's interest, if he makes a fresh claim before the Controlling Authority on the basis of fresh material procured by resorting to appropriate remedies, such application shall be considered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier application or the Appeal/order impugned in this Petition; all contentions kept open.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M. S. Karnik, J.) rejects a writ petition challenging the Appellate Authority's order dated 11/04/2022 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which had confirmed the Controlling Authority / Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai order dated 29/09/2021 denying gratuity to a Sweeper of Chembur Post Office allegedly appointed on daily wages on 20/12/1992. The court found that the Petitioner was unable to produce any document supporting his claim, and that no material was placed even in the petition to substantiate more than five years of continuous service. While rejecting the petition, the court permitted the Petitioner to make a fresh claim before the Controlling Authority on the basis of fresh material, to be considered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the earlier application and the impugned order/Appeal; all contentions were kept open and no costs were imposed.

¶1

Urmila Ingale

¶2

9-WP-3367-24.doc

¶3

Digitally signed URMILA by URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2025.01.21 17:37:49 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3367 OF 2024

¶6

Kailash Maruti Raut @ Patil .. Petitioner VS. The Secretary, Government of India Under Ministry of Labour and Employment and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, for the Petitioner. Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, for Respondents No. 1 and 3.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : JANUARY 21, 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Learned counsel

¶12

for the Respondents opposed the Petition. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 11/04/2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'The Gratuity Act'). It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed on 20/12/1992 as a Sweeper and was working with the Respondent No.3- Chembur Post Office on daily wages. It is the

¶13

1/3

¶14

Urmila Ingale 9-WP-3367-24.doc

¶15

stand of the Petitioner that he retired in the year 2007. Learned counsel submitted that in view of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act, the Petitioner having put in more than 5 years of continuous service was entitled to payment of gratuity.

¶16

2. The Appellate Authority heard the Appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 29/09/2021 passed by the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai. The Controlling Authority held that the Petitioner was not entitled to gratuity amount as he failed to substantiate his claim of gratuity despite being given several opportunities to adduce evidence. In Appeal, the Appellate Authority while confirming the order of the Controlling Authority observed as under:

¶17

“On perusal of the records, submissions and counter submissions of the Appellant and Respondent and order of the Controlling Authority dated 29/09/2021 it is observed that Appellant is unable to provide any document to support his claim of payment of Gratuity.”

¶18

3. Thus the reason why the Appellate Authority held against

¶19

the Petitioner is that he was not able to produce any documents in support of his claim. Even in this Petition there is no material

¶20

2/3

¶21

Urmila Ingale 9-WP-3367-24.doc

¶22

to substantiate the claim of the Petitioner that he has put in more than 5 continuous years of service.

¶23

4. The Petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper. The termination was effected according to the Petitioner as back as on 19/09/2000. It is not possible to grant any relief to the Petitioner based on the materials as they stand. However, it is necessary to protect the interest of the Petitioner, in that, if the Petitioner makes a fresh claim before the Controlling Authority on the basis of fresh material which he may procure by resorting to appropriate remedies, such application may be considered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact that the earlier application or Appeal against that order impugned in this Petition.

¶24

5. All contentions in that event are kept open. The Petition stands rejected. No cost.

¶25

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶26

3/3

Kilash Maruti Raut Nee Patil v. the Secretary Govt. of India Under Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kilash Maruti Raut Nee Patil v. the Secretary Govt. of India Under Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhanudas Anant Sherlekar and Anr., Vs Chandrakant Balkrishna Mahmbre and 9 Ors.

Padmashree Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr. vs the Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mansukh Patel and Another vs Hemant Rajmal Jain and Another

Anandrao Bhagwan Nikam vs the Secretary, Sadguru Jangali Maharaj Edu. Society and Ors.

Balaso Anna Chougule Since Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors. vs Jambu Narasgonda Pachore (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors)

Dean Dayal and Sons Partnership Firms Thr Its Partner vs the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Pune Thr Its Chairman and Ors.