Sudhir Ramchandra Desai vs Shivaji Sahakari Bank Ltd ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2569 Bom

SWAROOP Digitally
        SWAROOP
                  signed by

SHARAD SHARAD PHADKE
PHADKE Date:  2023.03.18
        12:51:42 +0530                                                          28 wp 11745 of 2022.doc

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              WRIT PETITION NO.11745 OF 2022

  Sudhir Ramchandra Desai                                  ...       Petitioner
         versus
  Shivaji Sahakari Bank Ltd.                               ...     Respondent

  Mr. Deepak A. Lad for Petitioner.
  None for Respondent.

                               CORAM:         N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                               DATE :         16 MARCH 2023

  P.C.

  1.                     Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

  2.                     The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 18 June 2022 passed

  by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1971, whereby the

  Appellate Authority was persuaded to allow the Appeal and set aside the order dated 2

  January            2019     passed     by    the   Controlling     Authority        directing    the

  Opponent/Respondent herein to pay to the Petitioner the gratuity amount of

  Rs4,28,400/- within a period of two months thereof along with interest @ 8% p.a from

  the date the gratuity became due till realization.

  3.                     The Appellate Authority was persuaded to allow the Appeal on the

  ground that a statement was made on behalf of the Opponent/Respondent that the

  challenge to the termination of the Petitioner was pending before the Industrial Court,

  and the parties had not apprised the Controlling Authority about the effect of the said

  SSP                                                                 1/2
                                                                    28 wp 11745 of 2022.doc

proceeding upon the entitlement of the Petitioner for gratuity.

4.           The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, in fact, the

Complaint (ULP) No.89 of 2012 was dismissed by the Industrial Court No.1,

Kolhapur, by a judgment and Order dated 17 April 2018. However, the said fact could

not be brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority.

5.           Since the Appellate Authority has allowed the Appeal solely on the

ground that there was no clarity as to the outcome of the proceedings in which the

termination was challenged by the Petitioner-employee and, in fact, the said challenge

was answered against the Petitioner before passing the impugned order, there is no

other go but to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal afresh.

6.           Hence, the following order :

                                       ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 18 June 2022 passed by the Appellate

Authority stands quashed and set aside.

(ii) Appeal (PGA) No.1 of 2019 stands restored to the file of the

Appellate Authority for afresh decision in accordance with law.

(iii) The Appellate Authority shall decide the said Appeal after

providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties and on its own merits.

(iv) The Writ Petition stands disposed.

                                                                 ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

SSP                                                        2/2