JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia seeking quashing and setting aside the orders dated 26.02.2019, 30.03.2017, 27.06.2014 and the inquiry report dated 20.08.2016.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for the respondent-Company has submitted that appropriate remedy to challenge the aforesaid order is before the concerned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by way of a writ petition before this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner is a workman and the respondent-Company is an Industry, hence the writ petition is not maintainable.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Shakti Jadeja appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the impugned orders are passed without authority of law and against the statute, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition directly before this Court challenging the action of the respondents and the dispute is not an industrial dispute and hence, the writ petition is maintainable.

3.1. He has invited attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer forfeiting the amount of leave encashment and gratuity in view of the proved misconduct. He has further invited attention of this Court to the retirement order passed by the respondent authorities retiring the petitioner from service. It is submitted by him that by the order dated 06.06.2014, the petitioner was ordered to be relieved from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2014. He has submitted that by the order dated 27.06.2014, the petitioner was retired from service subject to final decision of the disciplinary proceedings.

3.2. Learned advocate Mr. Jadeja has submitted that the impugned orders forfeiting the gratuity of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act") since the final order of termination has not been passed and without passing such order, the amount of gratuity and leave encashment could not have been withdrawn. He has further submitted that the departmental proceedings are also held illegal since no documents were provided to the petitioner.

3.3. It is submitted by him that the charges levelled against the petitioner pertain to the period of 2007-08 for about 49 work orders however, no documents were produced proving the aforesaid charges. He has submitted that in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner had filed various applications/letters dated 18.03.2013, 06.04.2013, 06.06.2013, 21.10.2013 and 28.10.2013 and had requested to supply him the documents, however the same were not supplied. It is submitted by him that thus, the inquiry proceedings are also illegal and hence, the impugned orders may be set aside.

3.4. Learned advocate Mr. Jadeja has further placed reliance on the circular dated 20.08.2011, whereby it was decided to implement the Service Regulation No. 72 of the respondent-Company. It is submitted that the said Circular reveals that the provision of the Act are required to be followed before forfeiting the amount of gratuity pending the disciplinary action. It is reiterated by him that since no termination order or no final order was passed in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents could not have directly passed the order forfeiting the amount of gratuity and leave encashment.

3.5. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of India v. C.G. Ajay Babu, 2018 (9) S.C.C. 529.

4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave has submitted that the writ petition may not be entertained in view of the alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Labour Court against the impugned orders and the departmental proceedings. He has submitted that assuming the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to defective inquiry is taken as it is, then also it is always open for the Labour Court