Bombay High Court
Ananta Ramchandra Dakshindas vs The Chairman, Chandrapur ... on 13 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 Judg. wp 3024.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.3024 of 1994
Ananta Ramchandra Dakshindas,
Aged 38 years, Occ.- Service,
Resident of Kalpa Building, Canal Road,
Dharampeth, Nagpur. .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1] The Chairman,
Chandrapur Gadchiroli Gramin Bank, Chandrapur.
2] Chandrapur Gadchiroli Gramin Bank, Chandrapur
through its Chairman.
3] Waingana Krishna Gramin Bank, (amended as per Court's
through its Chairman, Civil Lines, Order dated 12-04-2013)
Chandrapur.
4] Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank (Amended as per Court's
through its Chairman, order dated 05-08-2016)
Chandraprastha, Plot No.6, 2nd Floor,
Deendayal Nagar, Ring Road,
Nagpur- 440 022. .... Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. G. Venkatraman, Counsel for petitioner.
Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Senior Counsel with
Shri S.N. Dongre, Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : R. K. Deshpande &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 13 July, 2017
th
2 Judg. wp 3024.04.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)
Heard Mrs. Venkatraman, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Anand Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel with
Shri S.N. Dongre, Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
2] The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to pay him
gratuity to the tune of Rs.30,569.10/- together with interest at the rate
of 24% per annum from the date of his resignation till the full
realization. The another claim made is of reimbursement of the
medical bills to the extent of Rs.7,402.97/- in respect of illness of his
wife, along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date
of submission of bills till its realization.
3] There was debate before us on the question of actual
applicability of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
(for short' 'the said Act'). However, keeping aside that dispute, we
tried to ascertain as to whether on the basis of the provisions of the
said Act the petitioner has established his claim for payment of
gratuity. The petitioner was appointed on 01-12-1983, as an Officer
in the respondent Bank in the scale of Rs.600-1150 plus allowances.
The petitioner completed his period of probation on 01-12-1985 and
thereafter was continued in service. His pay scale was increased to
3 Judg. wp 3024.04.odt
Rs.2200-5800 plus allowances in the year 1987. The petitioner
resigned from the job on 11-11-1993 on account of his ill health. On
the date of resignation, the petitioner completed 9 years, 11 months
and 11 days service.
4] In the aforesaid background, the question is whether the
petitioner has established his entitlement to payment of gratuity even
in terms of the provisions of the said Act. It is not in dispute that in
order to be an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the
said Act, the wage limit prescribed for applicability of the Act was
of Rs. 1000/- before 1984. It was raised from Rs.1000/- to Rs.1600/-
with effect from 01-07-1984. The second revision was with effect
from 01-10-1987 from Rs.1600/- to Rs.2500/- and the last revision
before the resignation of the petitioner was on 01-12-1992 for
Rs.2500/- to Rs.3500/-. Even if, we accept in terms of the provisions
of the said Act the payment of gratuity would be available to the
petitioner upon rendering continuous service of five years, we have
to find out as to whether the wages drawn by the petitioner were
within the limits prescribed and revised from time to time, so that
the respondents can be directed to make the payment of gratuity as
claimed in the petition.
5] The respondents have filed an additional affidavit dated
4 Judg. wp 3024.04.odt
08-06-2017 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 06-03-2017,
in which it is stated that the petitioner was working under the
jurisdiction of Chandrapur Regional Office. However, in spite of the
efforts, the respondents could not trace out the relevant record for
placing data of the wages drawn by the petitioner from time to time
more particularly on the dates of every revision.
6] It is the petitioner who is coming before the Court to claim
the payment of gratuity and hence it is for him to place on record
such a data so as to get the relief claimed. The petition is pending
since 1994 but till this date we do not find any such data placed on
record. Even the matter was adjourned on 02-03-2017, but till this
date no such data is placed on record to ascertain as to whether the
petitioner was drawing wages within the limits which were revised
from time to time. The affidavit filed by the petitioner subsequently
alleges that there was no practice of issuing pay slips to the
employees. In the absence of such information and evidence, it is not
possible for us, to grant the relief of payment of gratuity to the
petitioner as has been claimed.
7] So far as the reimbursement of medical expenses is
concerned, we direct the respondents to make the payment of
Rs.7,402.97/- to the petitioner towards the reimbursement of medical
5 Judg. wp 3024.04.odt
expenses for illness of his wife along with interest at the rate of 8%
per annum from the date of submission of bills till realization.
8] Petition is, thus, partly allowed in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
