Bombay High Court
The Managin Director, ... vs The Judge Labour Court, Gondia And ... on 7 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 2409.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2409 OF 2016
1] The Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Cooperative
Tribal Development Corporation,
Ram Ganesh Gadkari Chowk,
Old Agra Road, Nashik.
2] Regional Manager,
Maharashtra State Cooperative
Tribal Development Corporation,
Sai Nath Nagar, Takia road,
Bhandara.
3] The Sub-Regional Manager,
Maharashtra State Cooperative
Tribal Development Corporation
At post Navegaon Bandh,
Tahsil-Arjuni Morgaon,
District-Gondia. .. PETITIONERS
(Original non-applicant nos.1 to 3)
.. VERSUS ..
1] The Judge, Labour Court,
Gondia.
2] Dadurao Daulat Dadmal, (original applicant)
Aged 60 years,
Occupation-Retired,
R/o. Gad Kumbhali,
Tahsil-Sakoli, District-Bhandara. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Petitioners,
Shri Bhagwan M. Lonare, AGP for Respondent no.1-State,
Shri A.N. Vastani, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
..........
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:24:27 :::
WP 2409.16.odt 2
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JULY 07, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties.
2] This petition is directed against the judgment and
order dated 5.2.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Gondia in
IDA Case No.12/2014.
3] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated
in nutshell as under :
(i) Respondent no.2 was working as Grader
with petitioners from 19.10.1978 to 30.9.2013. After more
than 34 years service, respondent no.2 retired and pension
is being regularly paid to him. However, claim of
respondent no.2 towards gratuity and encashment of earned
leave amounting to Rs.6,00,400/- and Rs.3,00,200/-
respectively was denied by petitioners.
(ii) Respondent no.2 filed an application
under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
read with Section 7 (1) and 6 of the Payment of Gratuity
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:24:27 :::
WP 2409.16.odt 3
Act,1972 before the Labour Court, Gondia. This application
came to be partly allowed and petitioners/non-applicants in
the application were directed to pay to applicant/respondent
no.2 an amount of Rs.9,00,600/- towards gratuity and
encashment of earned leave along with simple interest @
10% per annum on the amount of gratuity from 30.9.2013
till its realization. It is this order which is the subject matter
of present writ petition.
4] It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 was
working with petitioners from 19.10.1978 till his retirement
on 30.9.2013. It is also not in dispute that he was in service
for more than 34 years. In the written statement filed
before the Labout Court, petitioners have admitted that
respondent no.2 has not been paid some of his dues. It is
not denied that petitioners issued a certificate dated
4.6.2014 for recovery of Rs.7,89,034/- from respondent no.2
towards shortage of good-grains. From the evidence
adduced by petitioners in the application filed by respondent
no.2, it is clear that amount of Rs.9,00,600/- was sanctioned
to respondent no.2 towards gratuity and encashment of
earned leave. Petitioners ordered recovery of Rs.7,89,034/-
against the claim towards gratuity and encashment of
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:24:27 :::
WP 2409.16.odt 4
earned leave sanctioned to respondent no.2. It is an
admitted fact that no enquiry was conducted before issuing
recovery order, no notice was issued to respondent no.2, no
proceedings were initiated and without issuing notice,
without conducting an inquiry and without initiating any
proceedings, petitioners issued order of recovery of amount
from respondent no.2.
5] The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
huge recovery of Rs.7,89,034/- is to be made from
respondent no.2 and recovery certificate dated 4.6.2014 has
been accordingly issued. The learned counsel submits that
under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,
respondent no.2 was required to approach the controlling
authority and Labour Court has no jurisdiction under section
33-C (2) in such a case. The submission is that the order of
Labour Court is without jurisdiction and needs to be
interfered in writ jurisdiction. On the object and scope under
section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, learned
counsel for petitioners relied upon :
(i) Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Limited .vs. The Workmen
and another [1974 Lab.I.C.1018]
(ii) State of Punjab .vs. The Labour
Court, Jullundur and others [AIR 1979 SC
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:24:27 :::
WP 2409.16.odt 5
1981]
(iii) P.K. Singh and others .vs.
Presiding Officer and others [(1988) 3
SCC 457]
(iv) Municipal Corporation of Delhi
.vs. Ganesh Razak and another [1994 AIR
SCW 5000]
(v) Municipal Council, Bhandara
through its Chief Officer .vs. Vimal
widow of Sadaram Kodape [ 2014 II CLR
57].
6] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2
submits that petitioners have admitted entitlement of
respondent no.2 towards gratuity to the tune of
Rs.6,00,400/- and encashment of earned leave of
Rs.3,00,200/-. The submission is that despite admission to
entitlement of respondent no.2, petitioners abruptly directed
recovery of Rs.7,89,034/-. According to learned counsel,
once the claim was admitted and there was no dispute
regarding entitlement of petitioners, Labour Court rightly
directed the petitioners to pay legal dues to respondent no.2
under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act.
Submission is that provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 would not be attracted and in view of unequivocal
admission of petitioners, Labour Court has jurisdiction to
decide the application. In short, submission is that the
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:24:27 :::
WP 2409.16.odt 6
controversy is not governed by the provisions of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, but by Section 33-C (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. In support of submissions, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 placed reliance on :
(i) Pettai Co-operative Milk Supply
Society Limited .vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Madurai and another. [1976
Lab.I.C. 278]
(ii) State of Punjab .vs. The Labour
Court, Jullundur and others [AIR 1979 SC
1981]
(iii) Rajinder Kumar Nangia .vs.
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited
[2002 (1) Mh.L.J. 518]
7] It is apparent that reasons recorded by the Labour
Court are based on undisputed facts and documents and the
evidence on record. No where petitioners have disputed
entitlement of respondent no.2 towards gratuity to the tune
of Rs.6,00,400/- and towards encashment of earned leave of
Rs.3,00,200/-. In view of unequivocal admission on the part
of petitioners, Labour Court has rightly held that
petitioners/non-applicants were liable to pay sanctioned
amount of Rs.9,00,600/- towards gratuity and encashment
of earned leave to respondent no.2. No perversity or
illegality is noticed in the impugned order. Writ Petition is
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:24:27 :::
WP 2409.16.odt 7
devoid of substance and merits. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.2409/2016 is dismissed.
(ii) Rule is discharged.
(iii) No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
