Bombay High Court
The Divisional Cont. M S R T Corpn vs Waman Trimbak Khonde on 12 May, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 122.wp.4052.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4052 OF 2002
The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Waman Trimbak Khonde,
resident of Dhawani Mohalla,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENT
...
Smt.R.D.Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 12th May, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 18.07.2001 and
the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 20.08.2002 by which the
Respondent has been granted gratuity.
2 This Court, while admitting this petition on 20.11.2002,
*2* 122.wp.4052.02
observed that since the amount of gratuity was already deposited before
the Appellate Authority and that has been withdrawn by the Respondent,
the said withdrawal would be subject to the result of this petition.
3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously
criticized the impugned judgment. It is submitted that once the employee
is dismissed from service for a proved misconduct of dishonesty, the said
employee can never be entitled for gratuity. It is stated that the charge of
allowing a truck unauthorizedly in the premises which were being
guarded by the Respondent as a watchman and permitting the said truck
to flee filled with scrap material illegally, was proved against the
Respondent. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in the matter of Jorsingh Govind Vanjari vs. Divisional
Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon, 2016
(12) SCALE 511, by which the Honourable Supreme Court has held in
paragraph 17 as under:-
"17. In order to deny gratuity to an employee, it is not
enough that the alleged misconduct of the employee
constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude as
per the report of the domestic inquiry. There must be
termination on account of the alleged misconduct,
which constitutes an offence involving moral
turpitude."
4 It is, therefore, submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court
*3* 122.wp.4052.02
has concluded in Jorsingh Vanjari case (supra) that if an employee is
dismissed for proved misconduct of dishonesty or moral turpitude, he can
be deprived of gratuity.
5 I could have accepted the submissions of the learned counsel
for the Petitioner, but for the fact that after the dismissal of the
Respondent was challenged by him in Complaint (ULP) No.341/1988, his
complaint was partly allowed and it was held that the charges of
misappropriation and fraud are not proved. The Petitioner filed Revision
(ULP) No.55/1996 and the Respondent filed Revision (ULP) No.3/1997
before the Industrial Court. Both the revision petitions were dismissed by
the Industrial Court by order dated 20.08.1998 and the judgment of the
Labour Court was confirmed. It is, therefore, apparent that the Labour
Court has concluded that the dismissal shall be treated as discharge
simplicitor. The Respondent retired during the pendency of the
proceedings before the Industrial Court.
6 The Petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition
No.253/1999. By judgment dated 29.02.2012, this Court concluded that
as the charges were not proved against the Respondent/ Employee, no
interference was called for in the judgments of the Labour Court and the
Industrial Court.
*4* 122.wp.4052.02
7 In the above backdrop, it is apparent that the charges of fraud
and misappropriation are not proved against the Respondent. The
payment of gratuity ordered by the Controlling Authority and the
Appellate Authority cannot, therefore, be termed as being perverse or
erroneous.
8 Considering the above, this Writ Petition being devoid of
merit is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
