Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE MUKULIKA SHRIKANT JAWALKAR
Municipal Council Achalpur - Appellant
Versus
Anil Laxmanrao Pataskar - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 887 OF 2024
Decided On : 22-01-2025
Mr. Rohan Bhishikar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. N. R. Saboo, Advocate for the Respondents.
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies unless an establishment is exempted, and it provides more beneficial terms for employees compared to the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
Headnote:
(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 4(5) and 5 - Municipal Council's challenge to gratuity payments - The petitioner contended that gratuity was paid under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, but the court found that the Payment of Gratuity Act provides better terms for employees. The petitioner failed to seek exemption under Section 5 of the Act. (Paras 9-12)
(B) Legal Interpretation - The court emphasized that unless an establishment is exempted under Section 5, the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act apply, reinforcing its beneficial nature. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
The Municipal Council challenged orders directing payment of gratuity to employees, asserting that they were governed by the Pension Rules. The Controlling Authority had ruled in favor of the employees, leading to appeals that were dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decisions of the Controlling Authority, confirming that the Payment of Gratuity Act is more beneficial and applicable.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Municipal Council was exempt from the Payment of Gratuity Act and the applicability of the Pension Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable unless an exemption is granted, and the Act's provisions are more beneficial to employees.
Result: All writ petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Since the issue involved in all these petitions is similar hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. In Writ Petition No.887/2024, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.06.2023, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Amravati in P.G.A. Appeal No.12/2021 and further challenging the judgment and order dated 26.10.2021, passed by the Controlling Authority, Labour Court, Amravati in Application (PGA) No.09/2016.
4. In Writ Petition No.813/2024, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.06.2023, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Amravati in P.G.A. Appeal No.13/2021 and further challenging the judgment and order dated 26.10.2021, passed by the Controlling Authority, Labour Court, Amravati in Application (PGA) No.08/2016.
5. In Writ Petition No.889/2024, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.06.2023, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Amravati in P.G.A. Appeal No.08/2022 and further challenging the judgment and order dated 15.02.2022, passed by the Controlling Authority, Labour Court, Amravati in Application (PGA) No.34/2015.
6. In Writ Petition No.340/2024, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.10.2023, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Amravati in P.G.A. Appeal No.15/2022 and further challenging the judgment and order dated 25.05.2022, passed by the Controlling Authority, Labour Court, Amravati in Application (PGA) No.07/2016.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner – Municipal Council, Achalpur that the petitioner is a local authority and is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. The respondents were initially engaged in the services of the petitioner as a daily wager and thereafter, they were confirmed in the services as per the order and approval given by the Director of Municipal Administration in Writ Petition No.887/2024 from 02.05.2001 till 30.04.2024, in Writ Petition No.813/2024 from 02.05.2001 till 31.12.2012, in Writ Petition No.889/2024 from 01.07.1989 till 31.03.2013 and Writ Petition No.340/2024 from 20.09.2002 till 31.01.2014. The respondents filed the Applications bearing (PGA) Nos. 09/2016, 08/2016, 34/2015 and 07/2016, before the Controlling Authority alleging that they are governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and amount of gratuity is not paid properly. The Controlling Authority after hearing both the parties, directed the Municipal Council – petitioner to pay the respondent in Writ Petition No.887/2024 of Rs.1,38,061/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 01.06.2014 till actual payment of gratuity, in Writ Petition No.813/2024 of Rs.1,17,442/-with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 01.02.2013 till actual payment of gratuity, in Writ Petition No.889/2024 of Rs.2,27,978/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 01.05.2013 till actual payment of gratuity and in Writ Petition No.340/2024 of Rs.2,87,522/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 01.10.2014 till actual payment of gratuity.
8. The said judgments and orders were assailed by filing appeals bearing P.G.A.-Appeal Nos.12/2021, 13/2021, 08/2022 and 15/2022 before the Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Amravati. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeals holding that there is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Controlling Authority.
9. It is the contention of the petitioner that amount of gratuity was paid as per the Rule 111 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 however, in view of Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which reads as under :
“Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive be
