1 wp 7003.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7003 OF 2010 Bhimraj Malhari Sanap, Age : 67 Years, Occu. : Retired, R/o Tigaon, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar, Through its Chief Executive Officer .. Respondent Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4111 OF 2010 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus Bhimraj Malhari Sanap, Age : Major, Occu. : Retired, R/o Tigaon, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. .. Respondent 2 wp 7003.10 Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. V. Barde, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No 7003/2010 had filed Complaint ULP No. 42/2007 for pensionary benefits as departmental proceedings were commenced and concluded against the petitioner and before the punishment could be pronounced he had attained the age of superannuation. According to him the pensionary benefits like provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment were not paid to the petitioner, nor the pension is sanctioned. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Complaint. The respondent in Writ Petition No. 7003/2010 was directed to pay amount of provident fund, gratuity and other legal dues within one month. The Industrial Court did not grant pension. Aggrieved thereby the writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4111/2010 is the 3 wp 7003.10 employer. The employer is aggrieved by the order of Industrial Court partly allowing the complaint and grant of relief of provident fund, gratuity and other legal dues. 4. Heard Shri Barde the learned counsel for the employee and Shri S. T. Shelke, the learned counsel for the employer. Upon hearing the learned counsel for respective parties and going through the impugned judgment. It appears that the Industrial Court has not taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and that of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. No reasons are given as to why the pension is not been allowed to the petitioner/original complainant. So also the effect of the punishment awarded by the employer is also not considered. The Industrial Court before whom the matter was pending is required to consider all the aspects of the matter and thereafter arrive at a particular conclusion. Even the issues to that effect are not framed. 5. Both the learned counsel agree that the matter be remitted to the Industrial Court for deciding it afresh. 4 wp 7003.10 6. In the light of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2010 in Complaint ULP No. 42/2007 is quashed and set aside and the parties are relegated to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court shall decide said Complaint ULP No. 42/2007 afresh after giving opportunity to the parties and shall decide the same in view of the case put forth by the rival parties after framing the proper issues. 7. The Rule is accordingly made absolute in both the writ petitions. The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court on 12 th September, 2011. The Industrial Court shall decide the said complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. No. costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11