The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to gratuity following dismissal, based on the absence of any loss caused by the employee to the property belonging to the employer.

Vivek Agarwal, J.

Shri Vivek Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

Shri Shrinivas Gajendra Gadkar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition mentioning therein that he was dismissed from service on account of his two months long absence but he has not been paid certain statutory dues which did not forfeit along with such dismissal namely refund of employees deposit fund, refund of security amount, gratuit, and difference of revised pay upto date of dismissal. It is clearly mentioned in para 5.5 that Pay Scale as then prevailed from 1984-1985 i.e. 775-1220 was revised from 1994-1996 i.e. 825-1380.

3. In view of such averments, it is also submitted that petitioner's gratuity shall not stand forfeited inasmuch as in terms of the provisions contained in section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been dismissed for any act, wilful omission for negligence causing any damage or lost to, or destruction of property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. It is petitioner's contention that since no loss has been caused by him to the property belonging to the employer he shall be entitled to gratuity.

4. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that since petitioner was posted in the State of Raipur which is now part of Chhattisgarh and dismissed from Raipur itself and since State of Chhattisgarh has come into being w.e.f. 1st November, 2000 it is respondent No. 2 who will be responsible for payment of these dues.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 in his reply has mentioned that bifurcation of MPRTC had taken place in the year 2002 and since services of the petitioner were dispensed with in the year 1996 therefore, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court on 30.1.2004 in WP No. 1380/2003 (Principal Seat Jabalpur) wherein in para 4 it has been held that reading of notification issued by Government of India published in the Gazette of India on 27th December, 2002, it is apparent that the date of dissolution of erstwhile MPSRTC is 31st December, 2002. The field staff, buses and stores of M-P. States Road Transport Corporation shall be divided on the basis of "as is where is" as on 1st November, 2000. The head office shall be shared by the ratio of 18:82 between Chhattisgarh and M.P. The respective States shall be responsible for their share of staff from the date of dissolution. With respect to salary of staff including voluntary retirement scheme till the date of dissolution, shall be paid by the existing undivided Corporation i.e. M.P.R.T.C. till 31st December, 2002.

6. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that since date of the dismissal of the petitioner is prior to the date of dissolution of the undivided corporation i.e. MPRTC therefore respondent No. 1 is liable to pay the claims of the petitioner.

7. Thus, the petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to pay the dues of the petitioner within a period of three months along with interest @ 8%.

8. It is directed that respondent No. 1 shall bear the costs of proceedings which is quantified as Rs. 5,000/-. Let this order be complied by respondent No. 1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order being passed today.

9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.