SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Municipal Commissioner - Appellant
Versus
Anita Digambar Jadhav - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9565 of 2017, 5212 of 2019
Decided On : 07-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
A. S. Peerzada, Advocate, R. Y. Sirsikar, Advocate, Shahin Kadar Sayed, Advocate, Suryakant Pise, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a valid nomination under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be made in favor of a non-family member when the employee has no surviving family, and that the nominee has a right to claim the amounts due, irrespective of the definition of 'family' under the Act.

Headnote:

PROVIDENT FUND, GRATUITY - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33-C(2); PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - SECTIONS 2(h), 6, 14 - The court interpreted Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which allows for the recovery of amounts due to an employee, affirming the respondent's right as the only legal heir to claim the Provident Fund dues. The court also analyzed the Payment of Gratuity Act, particularly the definition of 'family' under Section 2(h) and the provisions for nomination under Section 6, concluding that the deceased employee's nomination in favor of the respondent was valid despite her not being classified as 'family' under the Act. The court emphasized the overriding effect of the Gratuity Act, allowing for claims by non-family members when no family exists, thus supporting the respondent's claims for both Provident Fund and gratuity.

Fact of the Case:

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) faced two writ petitions regarding claims made by Mrs. Anita Digambar Jadhav, the niece of the deceased employee, Smt. Ratnamala Sadashiv Salve. The first petition concerned Provident Fund dues of Rs.3,66,240, and the second involved a gratuity claim of Rs.1,06,841. The Labour Court had previously ruled in favor of the respondent, recognizing her as the only legal heir entitled to these amounts based on affidavits and letters submitted by the deceased employee before her death.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the Labour Court's findings, confirming that the respondent was the only legal heir of the deceased employee and entitled to the claimed amounts. The court found no merit in the MCGM's arguments against the validity of the claims, including the necessity of a succession certificate, and noted that the respondent had sufficiently proven her entitlement to the Provident Fund and gratuity.

Issues: 1. Whether the application for Provident Fund dues is maintainable? 2. Does the applicant prove her entitlement to the claimed amount? 3. Is the applicant entitled to interest on the claimed amount? 4. What amount is due? 5. What is the final order?

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the respondent, as the only legal heir, had a right to claim the Provident Fund and gratuity amounts based on the deceased employee's valid nomination. The definitions and provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act were interpreted to allow claims by non-family members when no family exists, reinforcing the validity of the deceased's nomination in favor of the respondent.

Final Decision: Both writ petitions were rejected, affirming the Labour Court's orders to pay the Provident Fund and gratuity amounts to the respondent. The MCGM was directed to release the Provident Fund amount within four weeks.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

G.S. Kulkarni, J. - Rule on both the writ petitions. Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. These are two writ petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, 'MCGM'). Writ Petition No. 9565 of 2017 pertains to a claim of the respondent for payment of the amount of the Provident Fund dues of Rs.3,66,240/-. Writ Petition No.5212 of 2019 pertains to the respondent's claim for an amount of Rs.1,06,841/- towards gratuity amount. The authorities below have allowed the said claims as payable to the respondent who is the niece of the deceased employee of the MCGM Smt. Ratnamala Sadashiv Salve.

Writ Petition No. 9565 of 2017

3. This writ petition assails an order dated 24 July, 2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sixth Labour Court, Mumbai on an application (IDA) No. 19 of 2015 filed by the respondent-Mrs. Anita Digambar Jadhav under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act thereby claiming Provident Fund dues, which were payable to Ratnamala Sadashiv Salve (for short, 'deceased employee'). The respondent claimed such amount in the capacity as the only surviving legal heir, being the niece of the deceased employee. In her application before the Labour Court, the respondent contended that her aunt (the deceased employee) was in the employment of the MCGM as a peon, who had retired from the service of the petitioner on 01 November, 2003. She expired on 22 January, 2013. The respondent contended that although about 10 years had lapsed after retirement of the deceased employee, the MCGM had not paid the Provident Fund dues which were amounting to Rs.3,66,240/-. It was the respondent's case that the deceased employee had submitted an affidavit to the MCGM inter-alia stating that she had no surviving member in her family and that the respondent being her niece was her only legal heir who was looking after her, hence all claims, amounts, insurance amount, pension amount as per rules of the MCGM be given to the respondent after her death. The contents of the affidavit as submitted to the MCGM are required to be noted which read thus:-

    '2. I am residing at the above mentioned address along with my niece namely Kum. Anita Digambar Jadhav. I have no issue, consequently said Kum. Anita Digambar Jadhav, is my alone one heir and she is looking after me.

3. Therefore all claims, amount, insurance amount, pension amount arrived as per Rules of the Mahanagar Palika may be given to my niece namely Kum. Anita Digambar Jadhav, after my death.'

4. Additionally there was also a letter dated 10 October, 2012 addressed by the deceased employee to the Administrative Officer (Schools), F/South Ward, Mumbai, inter-alia stating that she had retired on 01 November, 2003. In this letter, she stated that her father expired on 17 December, 1975. She had hence made nomination in favour of her mother, who had also expired on 22 October, 2008. She further stated that after the death of her mother, she was staying with the respondent who was looking after her. She further stated that she was a divorcee and did not have any issue and therefore, after her death, all the amounts entitled to her, namely, the insurance, pension amounts be paid to the respondent. The contents of the said letter are required to be noted which read thus:-

    'I, the undersigned Applicant, Smt. Ratnamala Sadashiv Salve, submit you the following statement that I was working on the Post of Peon in the Education Department of the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation. I have retired on 1.11.2003 due to age criteria. My employee code number is 2896822. Similarly, I myself was looking after my mother. But, after retirement, my mother has also died on 22.10.2008. Before the same, nomination was made in the name of my mother. After the death of my mother, I am staying with my niece Anita Digambar Jadhav and it is she who is looking after my entire maintenance. Similarly, I am a divorcee and I do not have any children.

Therefo

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top