1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10764 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10764 OF 2010 *** Bhausaheb Yashwant Rashinkar and seven others. ... PETITIONERS Versus State of Maharashtra and three others. ... RESPONDENTS *** Mr. S. D. Pokharkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Ms. V. A. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent/ State authorities. Mr. V. D. Hon, Advocate for Respondent No.4. *** 1. The petitioners before this Court are assailing reversing order passed by Appellate Authority under section 7 (7) of Payment of Gratuity Act. They approached competent authority under section 7 thereof with a grievance that they are entitled to receive certain amount on account of difference in payment of gratuity. The difference is worked out by contending that wage revision sanctioned to its employees by Respondent No. 4 from 2004 is improper and as Maharashtra 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10764 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. State Electricity Board sanctioned wage revision from 1998, the wage revision ought to have been sanctioned to its employees by Respondent No.4 from 1998. Thus, the gratuity claim on revised fixation from 1998 till 2004 was sought to be recovered in those proceedings. Competent authority allowed that application and Appellate Authority has found the claim unsustainable. 2. Advocate Shri Pokharkar for Petitioner has urged that the gratuity is an important legal right and all petitioners are senior citizen. He states that wage revision needs to be sanctioned from 1998 only and decision of Respondent NO.4 to extend it from 2004 is arbitrary. According to him, in the situation, the Appellate Authority should not have interfered in the matter. He also wanted to place on record some affidavit showing that the some employees have received 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10764 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. additional gratuity for such period i.e. for the period from 1998 to 2004. However, during arguments he accepted that employees named in the affidavit who got that benefit have superannuated after 2004. 3. Mr. Hon has urged that the decision of Respondent NO.4 to extend wage revision from 2004 is rightly interfered by Appellate Authority. According to learned counsel, the decision is final and conclusive in so far as the proceeding under section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act are concerned. Learned A.G.P. appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 also supports the order of Appellate Authority. 4. It is apparent that question whether decision of Respondent No.4 management to extend wage revision to its employees from 2004 or from 1998 could not have been questioned before the competent authority in 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10764 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. section 7 proceeding. The forum to challenge such decision is elsewhere. Unless and until that decision of management is found to be arbitrary or unfair, the petitioners cannot claim gratuity by straightway treating that wage revision has become applicable from 1998. The Appellate Authority has, therefore, correctly appreciated this situation. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has further pointed out that the amount of difference is deposited by the Respondent No. 4 with competent authority. He states that that amount should not be refunded and petitioner should be given some time to obtain interim order from competent authority in that respect. He also states that financial position of Respondent No.4 is very bad. 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10764 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 6. Shri Hon has stated that as the order is without jurisdiction the amount should be allowed to be withdrawn by the Respondent No. 4 and in case petitioner succeed in obtaining interim orders, the amount can be redeposited by Respondent NO.4. He further points out that as financial condition of Respondent NO. 4 is not good it requires the funds for immediate use. 7. After hearing respective counsel, I find that the basic question is whether the decision of management extending wage revision from 2004 to its employees is unfair. Whether merely because Maharashtra State Electricity Board, an independent employer, then in existence, extended wage revision to its employees from 1998, Respondent No.4 is duty bound to extend wage revision similarly is the question which 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10764 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. needs answer. The question cannot be decision by the authorities functioning under the frame of Gratuity Act. For those authorities, the wage revision decided by Respondent No.4 is final. The petitioner has to approach competent forum and get proper adjudication and declaration in this respect. Apparently, there is no such declaration. 8. The amount deposited by Respondent No.4 with competent authority is because of the conditions of section 7 which requires it to produce a certificate of deposit while preferring appeal under section 7 (7) of Payment of Gratuity Act. As the orders are found unsustainable, it is apparent that the amount cannot be withheld from Respondent NO. 4. Accordingly Respondent NO.4 is permitted to withdraw that amount. However, in view of statement made by Advocate Mr. Hon, if petitioner succeeds in obtaining interim 7 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10764 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. order from competent authority, the respondent No.4 shall be duty bound to redeposit the amount as per directions in that interim order. 9. With these observations, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:07/01/2011. ans/10764