2025:BHC-AS:50231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14846 OF 2025 H.A.L. (ND) Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.

through its Secretary Vijay Raghvendra Purandare … Petitioner Vs.

Devidas Gopalrao Varkhede and another … Respondents Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria a/w. Mr. Sachin D. Kadam for Petitioner.

Mr. Anilkumar Patil a/w. Ms. Zeel Jain and Mr. Digvijay A. Patil for Respondent No.1.

Ms. Vaishali Raje, AGP for Respondent No.2-State.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2025 P.C. :

. Heard Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anilkumar Patil, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.1. The State of Maharashtra, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is a formal party. Ms. Vaishali Raje, learned AGP appears for respondent No.2-State.

2. This petition challenges concurrent orders passed by the controlling authority and the appellate authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘Gratuity Act’), whereby the petitioner, which is a credit co-operative society, has been directed to pay gratuity amount to the respondent No.1 along with interest, as the gratuity amount was forfeited by the petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 was working as secretary of the petitioner society for about 33 years when he was served with a show cause notice dated 30.04.2013 as to why appropriate action of relieving him from M PA I R N A A B L SANDIP DMD11 i aIg :tN 1 i e t 7 A: a : L2 l 40 y 9 S 2 sA +5 iNg .01 n 5 D1 e 3 I. dP20 1 bPyARAB service should not be taken in the light of resolutions passed in the General Body Meetings of the petitioner society, on allegations that certain amounts of the petitioner society had been misappropriated.

4. By a letter dated 17.06.2013, the petitioner society relieved the respondent No.1 on the ground that his explanation given to the said show cause notice was not found to be satisfactory. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that before the aforesaid letter was issued, he had himself tendered his resignation on the very same day i.e. 17.06.2013.

5. It is to be noted that a reference was made in the show cause notice dated 30.04.2013 to a criminal case registered in respect of the alleged illegal siphoning off the amounts of the petitioner society, wherein the respondent No.1 was arraigned as an accused. It is not disputed that charge-sheet is filed wherein the respondent No.1 has also been shown as an accused.

6. Since the petitioner society failed to disburse gratuity amount payable to the respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, he was constrained to file an application before the controlling authority i.e. the First Labour Court at Nashik, seeking an order for disbursal of gratuity amount along with interest.

7. It is in these proceedings that the petitioner society came up with a case that in the light of the aforesaid acts of the respondent No.1, which amounted to offence involving moral turpitude, the gratuity was withheld by exercising power under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority i.e. the First Labout Court at Nashik considered the rival submissions and held in favour of the respondent No.1, directing payment of gratuity along with interest @10% p.a. from

17.06.2013 till its actual payment.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner society filed appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Industrial Court at Nashik. As per the statutory requirement, the petitioner society deposited the principal amount payable towards gratuity in order that the appeal be entertained by the appellate authority. By the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2025, the Industrial Court (appellate authority) dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the First Labour Court at Nashik (controlling authority).

9. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present petition.

10. Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria,