Kilash Maruti Raut Nee Patil v. The Secretary Govt. Of India Under Ministry Of Labour And Employment And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2025.01.21 17:37:49 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION URMILA PRAMOD INGALE WRIT PETITION NO. 3367 OF 2024 Kailash Maruti Raut @ Patil .. Petitioner VS.

The Secretary, Government of India Under Ministry of Labour and Employment and ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Sushil Kumar Tiwari, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, for Respondents No. 1 and 3. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE :

JANUARY 21, 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondents opposed the Petition. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 11/04/2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'The Gratuity Act'). It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed on 20/12/1992 as a Sweeper and was working with the Respondent No.3- Chembur Post Office on daily wages. It is the 1/3

stand of the Petitioner that he retired in the year 2007. Learned counsel submitted that in view of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act, the Petitioner having put in more than 5 years of continuous service was entitled to payment of gratuity.

2.

The Appellate Authority heard the Appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 29/09/2021 passed by the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai. The Controlling Authority held that the Petitioner was not entitled to gratuity amount as he failed to substantiate his claim of gratuity despite being given several opportunities to adduce evidence. In Appeal, the Appellate Authority while confirming the order of the Controlling Authority observed as under:

"On perusal of the records, submissions and counter submissions of the Appellant and Respondent and order of the Controlling Authority dated 29/09/2021 it is observed that Appellant is unable to provide any document to support his claim of payment of Gratuity."

3.

Thus the reason why the Appellate Authority held against the Petitioner is that he was not able to produce any documents in support of his claim. Even in this Petition there is no material 2/3

to substantiate the claim of the Petitioner that he has put in more than 5 continuous years of service.

4.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper. The termination was effected according to the Petitioner as back as on 19/09/2000. It is not possible to grant any relief to the Petitioner based on the materials as they stand. However, it is necessary to protect the interest of the Petitioner, in that, if the Petitioner makes a fresh claim before the Controlling Authority on the basis of fresh material which he may procure by resorting to appropriate remedies, such application may be considered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact that the earlier application or Appeal against that order impugned in this Petition. 5.

All contentions in that event are kept open. The Petition stands rejected. No cost.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 3/3