Iqbal S/O Noor Hasan Sheikh vs Maha. State Warehousing Corporation, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 22706 Bom

Bombay High Court

Iqbal S/O Noor Hasan Sheikh vs Maha. State Warehousing Corporation, ... on 5 August, 2024

Author: Nitin W. Sambre

Bench: Nitin W. Sambre

                                                    1                                   53wp7500.2022..odt



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7500 OF 2022
(Iqbal s/o. Noor Hasan Sheikh Vs. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, through its Chairman
                               and Managing Director and another)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                               Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Mr. P.D. Meghe, Advocate for petitioner.
                           Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for respondents.



                                            CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                                    ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATED : 05-08-2024

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,29,000/- i.e. fifty percent of the total amount of loss suffered by the respondent Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation was ordered from the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was dismissed from the service. The aspect of dismissal and treating the petitioner on suspension is not challenged. What has been challenged is that the amount of provident fund cannot be deducted including that of the contribution of the employer.

3. In the case in hand, it is informed by Mr. Saboo, the learned Counsel for the respondents, that petitioner's contribution of Rs.77,374 is already paid. However, an amount of Rs. 8,74,911/- is forfeited. The forfeiture of the share of the employer's contribution of Rs. 8,74,911/- is sought to be justified by relying on Clause 50 of the Employees Provident Fund Regulations 2 53wp7500.2022..odt

framed by the respondent Corporation.

4. Mr. Meghe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would urge that the said Regulations are not relied on in any of the documents including the pleadings and for the first time they are brought to the notice of the petitioner who intends to question the legality of the same being contrary to the parent Act i.e. Employees Provident Fund Act. That being so, he seeks deferring of the hearing of the petition so as to enable him to question the same.

5. Apart from above, learned Counsel Mr. Meghe would claim that the forfeiture of the gratuity was not preceded with the show cause notice and opportunity of hearing, which is mandatory as could be inferred from the catena of judgments. He would like to claim the same through amendment in the petition.

6. Leave is granted to amend the petition within a period of two weeks.

7. Let the amended copy of the petition be served on Mr. Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Stand over to 18.9.2024.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) Belkhede Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/08/2024 11:10:20