Arvind Kamalkant Pingle v. State Of Mahrashtra Through Government Pleader

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE Date:

2025.10.10 12:00:50 +0530 SUNNY ANKUSHRAO THOTE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2500 OF 2025 Arvind Kamalakant Pingle & Ors.

...Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Arvind K. Pingle, Petitioner No.1, present in person Mr. Arsh Mishra a/w Mr. Rahul Tervankar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

Ms. Prachi Tatake, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. Gaurangi Patil, AGP for the Respondent/State.

Mr. Shivprasad Borade, Advocate for Respondent No.3/MCGM. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 6th OCTOBER, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

The Petitioners' grievance against unpaid gratuity, interest etc. was raised by Petitioner No.1, who is present in the Court Hall, under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, before the Controlling Authority, which is the Labour Court. The Corporation approached the Appellate Court by depositing the gratuity amount as well as 6% of the statutory interest. The

Appellate Court which is the Industrial Court, dismissed the proceedings.

2.

The Corporation is now before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2595 of 2025. The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that the issue raised before the learned Single Judge is whether the Corporation can grant 6% interest on the unpaid amount. Petitioner No.1 herein has already appeared in the said proceeding.

3.

In the Petition before us, the Petitioners have claimed that BEST is not following the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In this case before us, the provisions have been complied with. The gratuity has been paid to all these three Petitioners. 6% interest is also paid. The issue whether the interest component should be 10% or 6%, is addressed to the learned Single Judge, before whom Petitioner No.1 has already appeared. 4.

In view of the above, keeping open all the issues raised by Petitioner No.1, to be considered by the learned Single Judge in the pending case, this Writ Petition is disposed off.

5.

Needless to state, in the event all these Petitioners desire to raise a common cause in public interest, they are at liberty. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)