1 WP-7838-2018+.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 7838 OF 2018

The Divisional Controller,

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation/MSRTC,

Division - Ahmednagar

… Petitioner

Versus

Shridhar Baburao Lokhande

… Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 7840 OF 2018

The Divisional Controller,

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation/MSRTC,

Division - Ahmednagar

… Petitioner

Versus

Ramchandra Shankar Shinde

… Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 7875 OF 2018

The Divisional Controller,

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation/MSRTC,

Division - Ahmednagar

… Petitioner

Versus

Kusum Gavaram Kanase

… Respondent

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 7876 OF 2018

The Divisional Controller,

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation/MSRTC,

Division - Ahmednagar

… Petitioner

Versus

Hirabai Balasaheb Jare

… Respondent

1 of 9

2 WP-7838-2018+.doc

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 8106 OF 2018

The Divisional Controller,

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation/MSRTC,

Division - Ahmednagar

… Petitioner

Versus

Sayyed Asgar Akabar

… Respondents

....

Mr. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. Parag V. Barde, Advocate for respondents

....

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.

DATED : 20^th JANUARY, 2021

PER COURT :-

.

This order governs disposal of these five writ petitions

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since common

question of facts and law arise therein.

2.

The challenge in all these writ petitions is to the

judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, setting aside the

orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act of 1972’), directing forfeiture

of gratuity payable to the respondents herein.

2 of 9

3 WP-7838-2018+.doc

3.

Facts:-

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

(MSRTC) is the petitioner in all these writ petitions. The respondents

were its employees as ‘Conductors’. They were found to have

misappropriated some amount collected from the passengers.

Departmental Enquiries were, therefore, initiated against all of them.

Charges framed against them were proved. The Divisional Traffic

Superintendent-cum-Competent Authority (the Competent

Authority), Ahmednagar, therefore, dismissed them from service.

Later on, the Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Ahmednagar passed an

order of forfeiture of gratuity payable to the respondents.

Meanwhile, the respondents had moved Assistant Labour

Commissioner-cum-Controller under the Act of 1972, for release of

gratuity in their favour. The Controller allowed their applications

and directed the petitioner – MSRTC to pay the amount due and

payable to the respondents along with 10% interest thereon. The

MSRTC challenged those orders in appeals before the Industrial

Court, Ahmednagar, which modified the orders to the extent of rate

of interest and date from which would become payable. The MSRTC

has, therefore, preferred these writ petitions.

3 of 9

4 WP-7838-2018+.doc

4.

Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for the

petitioner - MSRTC would submit that both the Courts below had

allowed the gratuity/case of the respondents on the ground that the

show cause notice was not issued to them before forfeiting the

amount of gratuity. The applications for release of gratuity amount

were filed after a period of about 7/8 years from the date of

dismissal. The MSRTC produced the copy of show cause notice

before the Industrial Court during hearing of the appeals. This Court,

in Writ Petition No. 9096 of 2016 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC

vs. Govind Sambhaji Hanumante), has found forfeiture of gratuity

amount to be just