WP 2409.1[SECTION].odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2409 OF 201[SECTION] 1] The [ENTITY]. 2] [ENTITY]. 3] The Sub-Regional Manager, Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal Development Corporation At post Navegaon Bandh, Tahsil-Arjuni Morgaon, District-Gondia. PETITIONERS (Original non-applicant nos.1 to 3) VERSUS 1] The [ENTITY]. 2] [ENTITY], (original applicant) Aged [SECTION]0 years, Occupation-Retired, R/o. Gad Kumbhali, Tahsil-Sakoli, District-Bhandara. RESPONDENTS Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for Petitioners, Shri [ENTITY], AGP for Respondent no.1-State, Shri [ENTITY], Advocate for Respondent No.2. Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:24:27 WP 2409.1[SECTION].odt 2 CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J. DATED : JULY 07, 2017. ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties. 2] This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.201[SECTION] passed by the Labour Court, Gondia in [CASE NUMBER].
3] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in nutshell as under :
(i) Respondent no.2 was working as Grader with petitioners from 19.10.1978 to 30.9.2013. After more than 34 years service, respondent no.2 retired and pension is being regularly paid to him. However, claim of respondent no.2 towards gratuity and encashment of earned leave amounting to Rs.[SECTION],00,400/- and Rs.3,00,200/-
respectively was denied by petitioners.
(ii) Respondent no.2 filed an application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] read with [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT],1972 before the Labour Court, Gondia. This application came to be partly allowed and petitioners/non-applicants in the application were directed to pay to applicant/respondent no.2 an amount of Rs.9,00,[SECTION]00/- towards gratuity and encashment of earned leave along with simple interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of gratuity from 30.9.2013 till its realization. It is this order which is the subject matter of present writ petition.
4] It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 was working with petitioners from 19.10.1978 till his retirement on 30.9.2013. It is also not in dispute that he was in service for more than 34 years. In the written statement filed before the Labout Court, petitioners have admitted that respondent no.2 has not been paid some of his dues. It is not denied that petitioners issued a certificate dated 4.[SECTION].2014 for recovery of Rs.7,89,034/- from respondent no.2 towards shortage of good-grains. From the evidence adduced by petitioners in the application filed by respondent no.2, it is clear that amount of Rs.9,00,[SECTION]00/- was sanctioned to respondent no.2 towards gratuity and encashment of earned leave. Petitioners ordered recovery of Rs.7,89,034/- against the claim towards gratuity and encashment of earned leave sanctioned to respondent no.2. It is an admitted fact that no enquiry was conducted before issuing recovery order, no notice was issued to respondent no.2, no proceedings were initiated and without issuing notice, without conducting an inquiry and without initiating any proceedings, petitioners issued order of recovery of amount from respondent no.2.
5] The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that huge recovery of Rs.7,89,034/- is to be made from respondent no.2 and recovery certificate dated 4.[SECTION].2014 has been accordingly issued. The learned counsel submits that under [SECTION] of the [ACT], respondent no.2 was required to approach the controlling authority and Labour Court has no jurisdiction under [SECTION] in such a case. The submission is that the order of Labour Court is without jurisdiction and needs to be interfered in writ jurisdiction. On the object and scope under [SECTION] of the [ACT], learned counsel for petitioners relied upon :
(i) [ENTITY] .vs. The [ENTITY]
(ii) [PRECEDENT] .vs. The [ENTITY] 1981]
(iii) [ENTITY] and others .vs. Presiding Officer and others [(1988) 3 SCC 457]
(iv) Municipal Corporation of Delhi .vs. Ganesh Razak and another [1994 AIR SCW 5000]
(v) Municipal Council, Bhandara through its Chief Officer .vs. Vimal widow of Sadaram Kodape [ 2014 II CLR 57].
[SECTION]] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that petitioners have admitted entitlement of respondent no.2 towards gratuity to the tune of Rs.[SECTION],00,400/- and encashment of earned leave of Rs.3,00,200/-. The submission is that despite admission to entitlement of respondent no.2, petitioners abruptly directed recovery of Rs.7,89,034/-. According to learned counsel, once the claim was admitted and there was no dispute regarding entitlement of petitioners, Labour Court rightly directed the petitioners to pay legal dues to respondent no.2 under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Submission is that provisions of [ACT] would not be attracted and in view of unequivocal admission of petitioners, Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the application. In short, submission is that the controversy is not governed by the provisions of the [ACT], but by [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In support of submissions, learned counsel for respondent no.2 placed reliance on :
(i) [PRECEDENT]. [197[SECTION] Lab.I.C. 278]
(ii) [PRECEDENT] .vs. The [ENTITY] 1981]
(iii) [PRECEDENT] 7] It is apparent that reasons recorded by the Labour Court are based on undisputed facts and documents and the evidence on record. No where petitioners have disputed entitlement of respondent no.2 towards gratuity to the tune of Rs.[SECTION],00,400/- and towards encashment of earned leave of Rs.3,00,200/-. In view of unequivocal admission on the part of petitioners, Labour Court has rightly held that petitioners/non-applicants were liable to pay sanctioned amount of Rs.9,00,[SECTION]00/- towards gratuity and encashment of earned leave to respondent no.2. No perversity or illegality is noticed in the impugned order. Writ Petition is devoid of substance and merits. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.2409/201[SECTION] is dismissed.
(ii) Rule is discharged. (iii) No costs. ([ENTITY] [ENTITY], J.) [ENTITY], PA