Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri Through Its Registrar v. Shiva Sambha Mali

*1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2018 Devai Silu Chavan WRIT PETITION NO. 77 OF 2018 Sidram Devappa Kamble WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2018 Jayadabi Sikandhar Nadaf WRIT PETITION NO. 79 OF 2018 Madhu Babu Pol WRIT PETITION NO. 80 OF 2018 Meharun Kondilal Nadaf

*2* WRIT PETITION NO. 81 OF 2018 Anusaya Maruti Jadhav WRIT PETITION NO. 82 OF 2018 Savitra Prabhu Kamble WRIT PETITION NO. 83 OF 2018 Malappa Andappa Mehatre WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2018 Mainabai Dagdu Mali WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2018 Kamalbai Vanappa Pujari WRIT PETITION NO. 86 OF 2018

*3* Kalidas Siddheshvar Gujare WRIT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2018 Mallappa Balappa Sherikar WRIT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2018 Shantabai Ankush Jadhav WRIT PETITION NO. 89 OF 2018 Janabai Subhash Dorle WRIT PETITION NO. 90 OF 2018 Shivamma Gena Bansode WRIT PETITION NO. 91 OF 2018 Govind Devram Vagaja

*4* WRIT PETITION NO. 92 OF 2018 Shantabai Dagadu Mavalane WRIT PETITION NO. 93 OF 2018 Kantabai Babasaheb Agalave WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2018 Mangal Kailash Gujare WRIT PETITION NO. 95 OF 2018 Vanappa Malappa Pujari WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2018 Gangabai Laxman Bandgar

*5* WRIT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2018 Rukhmini Sadashiv Bhandare WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2018 Nagnath Bhanudas Jadhav WRIT PETITION NO. 99 OF 2018 Devgana Kundlik Kamble WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2018 Jainabi Badsaha Nadaf WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2018 Rukhmini Namdeo Kadam WRIT PETITION NO. 102 OF 2018

*6* Haribhau Pandharinath Jadhav WRIT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2018 Vijaykumar Vitthal Gurav WRIT PETITION NO. 104 OF 2018 Mahabubi Bashir Nadaf WRIT PETITION NO. 105 OF 2018 Bismilla Gani Nadaf WRIT PETITION NO. 106 OF 2018 Narayan Ramchandra Shinde WRIT PETITION NO. 107 OF 2018 Sitabai Sarjerao Dethe

*7* WRIT PETITION NO. 108 OF 2018 Sumanbai Ramchandra Shende WRIT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2018 Suman Shankar Veer WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2018 Popat Narayan Sawant WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2018 Babasaheb Dattatraya Aaglave WRIT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2018 Salima Sikandar Nadaf WRIT PETITION NO. 113 OF 2018

*8* (Not on the Board) Sitaram Ambadas Jatkar WRIT PETITION NO. 114 OF 2018 (Not on the Board) Gunabai Khandu Aware WRIT PETITION NO. 115 OF 2018 (Not on the Board) Gautam Namdev Bansode WRIT PETITION NO. 116 OF 2018 (Not on the Board) Shiva Sambha Mali WRIT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2018 (Not on the Board) Kerba Mahadev Kamble

*9* ...

Mr.Shelke Avishkar S., Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Barde Parag Vijay with Mr.G.K.Madgekar, Advocate for the respondents.

...

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 11th October, 2019 Per Court:

In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioner/ Agricultural University has challenged the judgments dated 13.05.2015 delivered by the Controlling Authority and dated 30.09.2015 delivered by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The learned advocate for the petitioner/ university has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. He submits that all the respondents were daily wagers and would not be entitled for gratuity amounts. After working for different periods beyond five years, they were not in employment since 2001. They raised their claims for gratuity on 14.07.2011 before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority had allowed their claims by the impugned judgments and had granted interest even on the period of delay of 10 years. The learned advocate hastens to add that the said error was subsequently cured by the Appellate Authority, which was the Industrial Court in view of the change in jurisdiction under the Act and the interest for the period of delay was

*10* denied to the respondents.

The learned advocate has drawn my attention to the sixteen grounds formulated in the memo of petition.

The learned advocate for the respondents submits that the thrust of the petitioner's case is based on two grounds. Firstly that, these respondents are daily wagers and therefore, are not entitled to any gratuity. Secondly, they had raised their claims for gratuity after about ten years.

With respect to the first ground, the learned advocate for the respondents relies upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Chandrabhaga Machindra Dudhade vs. Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapeeth, 2016 (6) ALL MR 357, by which, this Court has crystallized the law that a daily wager, subject to the scheme of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, would be entitled for gratuity as the Act does not specifically deprive a daily wager from receiving gratuity amounts.

However, I find from the record that the Industrial Court, which was the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has rectified the error committed by the Controlling Authority, which had granted interest on the gratuity amounts even for the period of delay. The Appellate Court has, therefore, deprived the respondents of the interest component for the period of delay.

*11* The claims for gratuity were lodged on 14.07.2011. The petitioner/ university has deposited the gratuity amounts before the Controlling Authority on 30.06.2015 while approaching the Appellate Authority and the interest component was not deposited. The amounts of gratuity have already been withdrawn by the respondents. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions being devoid of merit are, therefore, dismissed.

In view of the above, the petitioner/ university, by deleting the period from 2001 to 14.07.2011, which is the period of delay in raising the claim, shall calculate the interest component as granted by the Appellate Authority from 14.07.2011 till the amount was deposited before the Controlling Authority and then deposit the said amount before the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar with a specific chart mentioning the amount to be received by each respondent, within a period of 12 weeks from today. The respondents shall withdraw the interest amount as per the chart that would be tendered by the petitioner/ university before the Industrial Court.

Insofar as Writ Petition No.76/2018 is concerned, the respondent/ original claimant (Devai Silu Chavan) has passed away. On the oral request of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the legal heirs of the deceased respondent are taken on record. Addition be carried out forthwith. Shri Barde, learned advocate, has caused an appearance on

*12* behalf of the legal heirs with his Vakalatnama. The widow of the deceased shall receive the amount.

kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)