t1

o
.{.

c
l
IT
In The Hon. Iabour Court and beforeThe Hon. ControilingAuttrority

Under Pavrncnt of Grafirity Act 1972 at latur.

)

P.GA.ApiticationNo. St- of zots Bih. Lt -r

Crr R trs,FH Loq{ <oe,oos Fzc1 g
Shri Vishwambhar Hanumant Kalal Applicant
Age about 62 years
Retired Senior Technician
NearLijj Papad Karkhana,
TuljapureiNagar, Nanded Naka,
Latur Ci Dist. Lahrr

lbrsns

The E e Engineer Opponent

State Electicity '
I

Distrih:ution
II
Comoanv Ltd.

Urban iDivision, Old Pswer House

i'
Salegqlli, Ganigolai Latur CityDst. Latur
i

c OU4 t !

..alq In Matter ofA lication direction of

}I C unde-r the ent ofC Act1972
ic' I
o
fr. Your Honour,

lEe undersignedApplicanl mos I respecffiJly and rnost huubly

submits as herein under.
I

l) Thati the Applicant is making ttris instant Application in the

capaeity ofRetired employee ofthe Opponent That in the starting

ri

; ofthe employmentoftheApplicant with ErstvrhileMSEB that is

Mah3rashfa State Elechicity Board he wzs employed on Nominal

Muster Roll (NMR) basis from 13.05.1981. lle continued to

 r;fr

=
.2. tr \]*.''

pattern for about ! 4Years, Later on hs wa-s

appoiffbd
work on the
,,t are admittbd
in GrouP IV Helper w.e.f.30.03.1995 and these facs
in the servi e
by the E MSEB and by the present Opponent

records of Applicant. He is retircd on 3l '05'2016'

e
2) That Prev ly existing @rstwhile MSEB) Maharashtra S

Govt' in
ElectricitY rd is divided by the Maharashtra State
. And by virtuc ofthe Respective
Govt' Rosolutioniof
Yezr2005'2
State Govt. now MSEB is split in to
the followipe
the i
i
eompanies. I

1) State ElectricitY Gcneration Co'

2) htft1 State Electricity liansmission Co' )

htra State Electricity Distribution Co'

(MSEDCL)
3)
B.
MS , is tbrmed oa 6e June 2005 on unbundling

As per the ons of Govt- of Maharashtra MSFIDCL ad

yees Service Regulations' The estahlishment
of thc
MSEB E
\
r a\r Opponent known as Maharashfa State Electricity Distibuilon
,;l Company t Latur hcrein after in short called as MSEDCL Latut in
I

on and in further procccdings of this Application [he

.
)?'.:
this Appl I

Applicanti s working with MSEDCL and the Oppooe 1r Li rs I

EDCL.

IV cafegory on the dcs on

3) That Appl was empioyed in Croup

of Senior ician dircctly under the above named Opponcnt 4nd

i
er
underthe connol oI'the Opponent. Thatthe Opponent-Emp

was thc tingAuthority. The service matters ofthe Appiicant

directly and substantially decided by the Opponcnt-Ennp

4) That the lastly was working and lastly retired under

Assistant MSEDCL UrbanUnitNo' 7 Latur City on the t

of Senior ian in Group IV. That the immediate Su

Authority Applicant is ttre Executive Engineer MSEDCL Ur

Division that is Opponen t-Efipl oY et.

 i r-\

.J

5) That the Applicant is an --mplo1'ee of tle above named Employel and

he was ihthe employment ofthe Employer from 13'05'1981 andhe is

rctircd on 3 i.05.20 16 onthe post of Senior Tcchnician undet the alrove

named Employer. Also that he ;s entitled to the payment of

gratuity

Under Section 4 ofthe Payment ofcratuityAct 1972' on account ofhis

retirernent after completion of 35 Years 00 Months l8 Days of

continuous service, and the totzrl servic€ of the Applicant is total ly

unblenristred.

6) 'Irhat the AFplicant had submittcd an Application under Rule 7(1) of

20'01 '201 8
the PayrnentofGratuity (Maharasbtra)Rules 1972 on dated

But the above named employer refused to entertain the same and even

failedto iszue theNotice as required rmderRuleS(l) (i) ofthe Paymcnt

ofGratuiry (Maharashta) Rules 1 972 in form 'U orNotice zs reguired

underRule 8(l) (ii) of the Paymentof Gratuity (Maharashna) Rules

1972 in form'lr{'. The duplicata ltlpy olthe Application in form 'l'
given by the Applicant to the above Employer and duly received by the
\
Employer is: encloscd hcrcrvith.
i!))
,/
7) that the Applicant submits hereby that there is dispute regarding the

amount of Gratuity, because the above named Employer has not paid

thc amount Gratuity as pcr thc Provisions of the Payment of Gratuity

Act 1972 and &e Paynrent cf Grat'.rity (Makarashha) Rules 1972- Even

the Employer as above has lbiled to reply the Application given by the

Applicant. That the Appl icant's rate ofwages last drawn was the amount

ofRs.39,398 /- per mr:nth (ln Words fu. Thirty Nine Thousand Three

Hrmdred Ninty Eight Onl,v) and theApplicant is entitled forthe amount

of gratuity of Rs .1 ,95,5361- {lnY.tords Rs. Seven Lakhs Ninety Five

Thousand Five Hundreci Thifry Six Only). The Applicant hereby claims

thc amount of gratuity payablc to him is to the tunc of Rs .7 ,95,536/' (ln

Words Rs. Seven Lakhs Ninefy Five Thousand Five Hundred Thiqv

SixOnly).
 .4.
2{o Ql
t}e "Annexurc"
s) Thal lheApplicanr fumishes the necessary pafiiculars in
f Authority may be pleased
hereto and prays that, this [lon. Controlling
the petitioner and direct
to deterrnine ihe amount ofgratuiiy payable to
to the petitioner' This
the above-mcntioncd employer to pay the same

Annexureenclosedherewithmaykindlybetreatedaspartofthis
Application f.or gratuitY'

fumished in the
9) That the Applicant declares that the particulars
knowlcdgc and
Annexure hereto are true and correct to the bcst ofhis

belief.

hereby that theamount ofgatuity

10) That tlre,-{pplicant-Ernployee submils
payablc uniler sub-section (3) ofSection 7 ofthcPaymcntofGratuity
Applicant-
Act1972 is not paid by the Opponent-Employer to the
Employee within the period spocificd in sub-scction (3) of Section 7
r
of the Payment of Gratuity Act I 972' l{ence the Opponent-Employe
Govt' from
shall pay simple interest at such rate notihed by the Central
\
("\ per anflum on
time to time for repaymeat of long term deposit percent
!1.c i
0'rn
tll thcamourrtrrfgratuitypayabletotlreApplicarrtftuurllrcdalritbecomes
o.li
r,v,, payable to the tlarc on which is the gratuity is actualiy paid' The above

employcr is bound to pay the interest a.s claimed asabovc' The employee

is entifled to claim ioterest in terms of Proviso 1 to sub-section (3A)

of Section 7 of Payment of (;ratuity Act I 972' it is submitted that the

delay in the payment of gratuity is not due to the fault ofthe cmployee

and more over also Employer has not obtained perndssion in writing

Aorn this Hoil. Controlling Alithority tbr the delayed payment on

tl'ris

ground, therefore the Applicant has legal right to claim the interest as

above.

l1) That theApplicant submits thd irr support ofhis Applieation forPayment

ofCratuity hc is submittingthe Doouments as luelrtioncd in the "L!Si pil

Documents" herewith. The Applicant reserves the rigirt of calling the

documents in the possession of the Opponent-Employer in this Hon

Court ifrequired to prove his ciaim fir the grafuiSl

 5 2,1 0
Applioation
12) ThaI there is NoLicritation Period applicable to this insta:rt
F 2 to sub
under
for gnhrif as PEr the Provisions laid down

Rule(l)ofRulcl0ofPayrnentofcrattrity(Mahara.chtra)Rules
provided
of &aruity Act 1972' It is
1972 traficd undcr thc Payment
is
under above Proviso 2 that no limitation for filing an Application

appli<ub1e it the Employcr as

failed to give the Notice under sub-
(5) of Rule 8 of Paymcnt
sectioo (2) of Section 7 read with sub-Rule
ltere in this case also' it is
of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules 19?2'
faiied to grve Notice to theApplicant
submitted that the Employer has
(2) of
payment of the gratuity as required under sub-section
for the
sub Rrrlc (5)
Gratui ty Actlg'l2rcadwith
Seotion 7 oflhe Paymenl of
(Maharashna) Rules 1972' ln
of Rule 8 of the Payment of bratuity
that the cause of action tbr this
atklition to this it is also submitted
cause of action because the
Application is coRtinuous and recurring
of gratuity oven upto this date
Employer failed to mako the payment
and hence there is no delay for
fiting thisApplication fcr gratuity'

\ tluty in Latur Dist' and also the

3) That the dpplicant has discharged his
4 1

Opponent-Employer's officc is sinrated

in l'atur Crty' Latur Dist' Henco

f
d,.1.

thisHon.CourtandHon.ControllingAuthorityhasterritorial
jurisdictioa to entertain and deci de the instant Application'

ad{ alter and amend the contents

I 4) That the Applicmt hereby submits to
gptuity withthc permission of
of thisApplicatiorr for 0re paynrent of
tliis flon. Court and'the Hon ConfollindAuttroniy'

in this Application
I 5) In view of the facts and circumstances meotioned
gatEity claimed in this
fte Applicant is entitled to the amount of
attached herewith as per
Application, more specifically in Annexure
19i?' Therefore the
provisions of The Payment of Grazuity Act
Applicant PraYs as herein after'
 (., t''
,6, &%
V
Prtryer
F
L Therefore, theApplicant herekry prays to kindly dcterrnine the amount

of gratuity lor Rs. 7,95,536/- (ln Words Rs. Scvcn Lakhs Ninety Fivc
Thousand Fivc llundrcd Thirty S i x 0nly) as payable to the Appl icant

In:m the above named Employer and as claimod in this Application.

2. Hence, it is prayed to kindly direct and order thc above named

Employer to pay interest (t! I 5 0Z per annum upon the above arnount
of gratuity fbr Rs. 7,95,536/- (ln Words Rs. Seven Lakhs Ninety Five

Thousand Five Hundred Thirty S ix Only).

3. Therefore, the Applicant prays for thc kind ordcr to pay cost ol'
Rs, I 0,000 /- (In wonls Rupees Ten Thousand only) fiom the Opponent-
Employer in thc interest ofthe Justicc.
4. Hence, the Applicant prays for the kind order for any otherjust and
equitable relief in thc favour of the Applicant as this Hon Court and
thc IIon. ConhollingAuthority may deem fit and necrssary in the intuest
ofJustice.

Through
WL
Signaturo of the Applicant
I
1' ! Vishwambhar llanr-urant ifuial

Adv. N. ltkari

Adv. . Itkari

Datc L7 .01-.1_8-
Placc : Lafur

\ERIFICATION

Verified at Latur on this day . D'z-'l,r that the

contcnts ofthis Application are lrue and correct to the best ofmy knowledgc

and belief.

sie,l ofthe Applicant

 AmcexEqqg
fr(\ {@'
-:

& 1 Name in full of tho APPlicant : \fi ,{hwamtrhar l{amunant Kalal

with flrllAddress Near Liiiat a,

Tuliaoure Nas4{.--Nendgd-}'lel{e"
Latur ciw Dist. Latur

2. Basis ofclaim : Retirerlpnt

'\',.t'!'*r '' '

3. "
Marital status'oJtheemployee : lvlenied

4. Name in f:ltoftEe EmPloYer :'lhe V€

withtullAddrest State
Distribution Comoanv LtdiUrban
o

Lat r st ,atur

5 on ssistant

where the emplPYee was'last emP loyed MSECDLLaIuT Urbaq.Unit

:
No. 7 l-alur C.i tv f)ist.

6. Post held bythe employee with Ticket or Serial No : Technician

7 Date of Appointment of the employee : 0s.1 98

8 Date and cause ofiennination of service : 37.05.2A16 u"

of the employee

) 9. Totai period ofservice : 35 Years 00 Months l8 DaYs i,,-

10. Wages last drawn by the employ'ee ; P''s' 39.398/'permonth *'
n Words

Thowand ryqgHqrdrcdNrnty
Eieht Onlv)

I 1. Toral Gratuiq payabJe to the empioyee : Rs. 7.95"536/- On Worils :

. R.. S"u.a Lskihs NfuietY Five

Thousand Five Hundred Thirtv
'Six
Only)

12. Amount of gratuity claimed by the Applioant : Rs- 7.95,536/'

GuWords Rs- Seven Lakhs t''linetv Five

]-rurusand Five Hundreri Ttri{y Six Onlv)
wilh siEole iul-erst ra 15 /€ per annum

Date :'L1..,A1-:.1{ si cf theApplieani

Placa : l,l;*at' lfi qirrrramhh.-r' IJanrr*ratl H^1.1
 o V
tl ,1

!
I
,)
I of 4 Appln. (PGA) No. 51/2018 *

: , PresenLedon :27/02/2018
on
.Registered :08/03/2018
Decided on :12/0a/2019
Duration : 01Y 01 M 04D
IN THE COURT OF c hITROL LIN CO FFICER F OR G. ACT
& JUDGE. LABOUR COUR LATUR
( BeFore Shri. S.K.Bangad)

Apptication (PGA) No.5U201 8

ICNR No. MHLC24-00009s-201 8l
Exh. No. O-3

Shri. Vishwambhar Hanumant Kalat

Age:- 62 Yrs. Occ. :- Relired,
Near Lijjat Papad Karkhana,
Tuljapure Nagar, Nanded Naka,
Latur CiEy Dist. Latur ... Applicant

V,E,Q-<ES

The Executive Engineer

Ma ha rashtra SEa te Electricity
D jstri bu tion Company L[d.
Urban Division, Old Power House Salegatti,
Canjgotai LaLur City Dist. Latur ... Resoondent

CLAIM tor recovery oF gratuity

: An appticaEion
amounE u/s.4 of graluily Act.

APPEAR E Shri.N.N. Itkari, Adv. For Apptica nL

Expary For Non-a pplicant.

/ a)
Nr
 (

&{ ')ol+ Appln. (PGA) No' 5'12018

to""#a?*Yfiu'o'''t
oF gratuity under Ehe
Apptication for payment
PaymenE of GratuiEY Act'1972'
FACTS IN BRIEF
was in service v'ri[h the respondent tiit
1. Appticant
He has completed his uninlerrupLed service
31.05.2016.
to 31'05'2016' He has worked for more
from 13.05-1981
For 35 years' So the
appticant is
than 240 days every year

entittedforgratuityofR's.7p5,5361-atong.withinterest. to
notice but Faited
z. Respondent was served with
appear and hence appticatidn is proceeded ex-parte
against
#
u?
\rfr
Lhe resPondent.
evidence on record tottowing
\
3. Considering the
ancl I have answered Ehem
points arise for my determination
etcnq-with reasons betow:

FINDINGS
Sr. POINTS
No.
oF Years.of : 35 years,
What is the tength
setuice oF
1
:;;i.;;;;- the
appticanE?
2 What was the rate oF tast drawri
: Rs.39,3981"
wa-ges of the aPPticant?
3 What amount is Found due?
: Rs'6,89,465/-
: As Fer final order'
4 What order?
I
L6
i ,'i 3 of 4 Appln. (PGA) No. 5U2018

XE,A5UN

As to lssues No.l to 4 r.
4. Applicant has examined himself by Fiting his
aFFidavit oF examination-in-chieF betow Exh.U-7. He has
reiterated the entire contents oF the apptication. He has
fited the copy oF pay stip For the month oF May 2016.
According to his {ast pay slip he was getting sata.ry of Rs.
39,398/ - For lhe ca lcu [a tion oF a m ou n t oF g ra tu iEy.

5. Respondent was served with notice bu! he Failed

to appean Hence the evidence oF appficant has gone
unchaltenged. For the calcutation oF amounL oF gratuily the
length oF service and his last pay is necessary. Appticant has
slaLed on oath lhat, he was appointed in the year 1981 and
he ,,,ras retired in the year 2016. So Ehe applican! has worked
For 35 years. Applicant has stated !hat, he has worked For
240 days eyery year. This fact has not bee.r) denied by the
respondenl. RespondenI has not produced any evidence to
show that, they have paid any amount towards gratuiLy to
the applicanE.
7. lt is duty oF the emptoyer to pay the gratuity
amount to the emptoyee at the end oF his service. ln the
present matter respondent has not paid the amounL oF
graLuiLy. His lasl pay was Rs.39,398/-. He has served with
responden[ For 35 years. Considering the tength oF service
and his [asI pay [he amounE oF gratui[y comes lo 39,39g/-
divide by 2 muttiptied by 35 years equat to Rs. 6,89,465/-.
9. Applicant has ctaimed inleresi @ 1S% p.a. on due

.@
-tF'Y 4 of.4 Appln. (PGA) No. 5120i6

amount. lt is admitted Fact thaE,,the respondent has not

proved that, the Futtamount of gratuity has been paid to [he
a.oiticant. Applieanl has ended his service in the ire3p /Q15
and is waiting tor his gratuity amounI since then, Even aFter
titing oF the present application the respondent has not paid
the amount oF gratuity. Considering the rale of inlerest
prevailing in the market the applicant is entitted For interest
on due amounL @ 6% p.a. tit[ iLs reaiiza[ion. Accordingty, I

answer points no. 1 lo 4 and pass tollowing order:

ORDER
It is hereby declared Ehat, the appticant is
entitted to receive gratuity amount Rs.6,89,465/- (Rs.

Six Lac Eighty Nine Thousand Four Hundred SIxEy Five

Oniy) together with interests lhereon at lhe rate ot
60/o p$ annum from 31 /05/201 6 titt its realizalion.

\
IS.K. ga dl
Place:- Lalur Conlrolling OfFicer For P.C. Act &
Date:- QlA4l2019 Judge, La'bour Court, Latur
12-{X-2019 PGA 51-2018.odt
Argued on : 12/04/2019
Judqment dictated on i 1210412019
Judgment transcribed on : 12/04/2019
Judgment checked & signed on : 12/0a12019
;1, iarr.'ii-i .. * '* O*l ,t
Apa; lfl{?rr
a*59 lcl04 l2-of-3
_.*__,-*
s{el :r t,i 8s. lal6qlz@t3
Hhnme*eq-3fg:a*-
,1rd$&
MA. Tqr q'r
ae
mE;ssdqh

In'11
6bb
I-r{rr 6
 \t, \r1 'r
U.
Iradrl| idi. frhD-J
t.t.^t1.4 ,r7 L (. \ur,(,1 '
.t ,

rtd.L lttt, PJ(i;fiafive :4tltt.lt'/t l9

-.c
*wrqlLtt" y 4y'a r+t|i'+*P* ll,.D \.l')<-
r-taa-..--......-..:.. /

g
i
L)st F oelay Apptication p,G.A. No. I / ZOL,Q,
-'rl .ir,Z.,r ,;i,r.. : ., .,. .: S_ , 0
I
iN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE INDUSTRIAL JUDGE AT AI
y'z
a LATUR.

The Executive Engineer,

Maharashtra State Electricity
N\,e!
Distribution Company Ltd.

Urban Division, Old Power House,

Sale Galli, Gunj Golai, Latur.
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
Appellant
L
y9q z Nollc
o--f ,L.\ .O\.,)!'\ Versus
lDr
rL 0 *u lt Shri. Vishwambhar Hanumant Kalat
Age : 52 Yrs. Occu : Retd. Sr. Technician.
r-01,\ Near Lijjat Papad Karkhana, Tuljapure Nagar,
s6. tr\. Nanded Naka, LaturTq. & Dist. Latur.
Respondent
:
t Claim For condonation of delay U/s. 5 of
Limitation Act,

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

Herein the above named applicant most respectfully

submits as under :-

t/tA
1) That. the respondent has filed p.G.A. apptication

bearing No. 51/2018 against the appticant on 27/72/2OLB before

u
the Labour Court and Controlling Authority for determine the
e
.!i
amount of gratuity, P.ecord shows that, the notice of application

was served on inward clerk of the applicant company on

22/03/20t8. The matter was heard exparte due to non

appearance of the applicant and .xparte ordei- against the

I
 l

was decided
23110/2018' The mafter
applicant was passed on
by the Labour Court / Controlling
and allowed ot\ .:2l}4l2ll9

Authority.Thejudgmentdeclaresthat.theapplicantisentitleto

receivegratuityamountofRs'6,s9,a65i.alongwithinterest@

6010 p.a. from 3ltO5t2OL6 till its realization'

application and its result

Z) That. the filing of the P'G'A

applicant himself to the Present

was made known by the original
judqment
on O7lf2l2Ol9 when a X'rrox copy of the
applicant
The applicant after going
was handed over to the applicant'
that' the
the first time came to know
throuqh the judgment, for
The
judgment was passed in the absence of the applicant'

enquiry in his office and

the Court'
applicant made necessary
of
was unable to find any documents' service
The applicant
the
form in his office' The applicant instructed
& l notice, applicant
{ I

advocate and collected all

the necessary documents which
\
of service of notice' related
include application itself' date
the judgment
through documents and
documents etc. On going

enquired in his office about the service of notice

the applicant
of
get any lnformation or documents
the appllcant was unable to
that' the
the Lower Court application it seems
concern

misplaced and not brought

to the
documents and application was
The documents are not
notice of the applicant at any moment
 I

l
l
l

I yet traced. The applicant is also tracing any chances of obtaining

ac
I

the judgment behind the back ol the company.

3) Ongoing through all above circumstances and fdctual

aspects the applicant decided to challenge the judgment and

order by filing an appeal. The statutory period for filing the

appeal for 60 days is already over and therefore, necessity of

condoning the delay for filing the appeal arises and therefore,

this delay condonation apptication.

4) The applicant submits that, the reasons for the delay

ur"_-?:n,r. administrative and parHy due to the misptqced

documents which are not yet traced. The matter pertains to

{/.
substantial and high value claim oF the applicant. The applicant
t(:r
on

is not at all entitled for any ctaim amount. The legal claim of the

appllcant under the Gratuity Act is already paid. The failure on

the part of subordinates, individual officers who may have failed

act with responsibility has resulted in non appearance of the

.to
applicant. In present circumstances injustice is caused to the
i
I
applicant. The applicant is a covt. company. Applicant submits

that, due to default on the part of individuals, those individuals

would not be affected but the company would be affected

and

therefore, in the larger interest ofjustice the delay in filing

of the

appeal as under is necessary to be condoned.

 -l

c--\

s) That, the judgment is delivered on l2/04129t9 on

information through the respondent the applicant came to know

the filfng of the matter on O7/f2/2079 and immediately after

going through his record instructed for certifted copies on

\
I
It/l2l2}l9 and received the same on 19/12/2019. On receiving
I

the copies further period of 4 days was required for instructing

and preparing the appeal and total period of 250 days has gone

from the date of judgment and after deducting the statutory

period of timitation lor fiting the appeal, i.e.60 days there is a

delay of 195 days in filing the appeal. The delay is not deliberate

and hearing of the appeal is necessary For the ends of justice' A

fair trial is necessary in the light of exparte judgment. The delay

as shown above deserves to be condoned

An affidavit in support of the application is annexed

s 6
herewith.

HENCE IT IS PRAYED
The delay of 195 days in filing the appeal may

kindly be condoned.

Date :31 / 12 / 2Ol9 Applicant

tn.orln,
-.\
\\V\r _
F;.'
,
^
larl. o.x. Kulkarni
:,i: i- -i - '- .

Latur.
 IAL RT aL __u-t-u_B
!N __ I-HE_ - -t!g-N_o_ _!l M_B-LE_,,rN QUSTR co u
% L_
A on PGA No. dL of2 I
The Executive Engineer ....... Appellant
Maharashtra State Electricity

a 11
/..-- Distribution Company Ltd.
Urban Division,Old Power Hor:se,
Sale Galli,Gunj Golai Latur

Tq. and Dist. Latur.

Versus

Shri Vishwambhar Hanumant Kalal Respondent

Age about 62 years,Retd.Sr.Tech nician,

Near Lijjat papad Karkhana ,Tu!,japure Nagar

Nanded Naka, Latur Tq.& Dist Latur.

&eplylS_the_q11p[c3_tiq!:r_[o_1!l'_e_gqit_danAIiSD,?f d€lqyrrn(6p5".11on5of The

_LjIrEa!Lo_!4e!_1-s_q3.

Ma It Pl ase Your H nour

The undersigned Respondent most humbly and most respectfully submits

his reply as herein under.

That first of all, it is most r€spectfully submitted that the instant application

filed for condonation of delay under section 5 of The Limitation Act 1963 is

not at all tenable in the eyes of the law. Because The payment of Gratuity
Ad 1972 is special law and for filing Appeal under this law, there is special
provision under section 7(7) of The payment of Gratuity Act 1972.The special
law prevails upon the general law is cardinal principle of law; hence this
instant application is devoid of any merit of law.

1. That, it is true that the respondent mentioned herein above had

submitted Application PGA trto.51 of 20j.8 in the Hon. Labour Court and

before the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act at Latur.
$5 That the Appellant herein this matter has admitted that Notice of the above

Application PGA No.51 of 2018 is served on the inward clerk of the Appellant
Company on 22.03.2078.

That, it is the failure on the part of Appellant to get the Notice of PGA NO'51
of 2018 from his own office inward clerk and hence there is no fault of the
Applicant -Employee in this respect. The exparte Judgment and Order is
passed because of the grave negligence of the Appellant'

2. That again the Appellant herein has given admissions with regard to the
receipt and knowledge of the Judgment and Order in the above case as it is

admitted by the Appellant that the Criginal applicant that is the Respondent
herein has submitted the Xerox cocy of the above Judgment and Order as
mentioned above on 07.L2.2019.With request to make the payment
df

gratuity amount under the above Judgment and Order'

That the Appellant in this matter is making lame anci pitiable defence that

the concerned documents and application was misplaced and not brought to
his notice and not traced vet' As per lalv' this stano of the ADpellanr is

baseless and law cannot help him this case.

3. That, there is again admiSsions on behalf of the Appellant that statutory

period for filing appeal for 60 days in already over' Appellant's application

for condonation of delay in filing this instant Appeal deserves to be rejected

because there is inordinate delarT that cannot be condoned 'This inordinate

delay should have been explained day to day and it is observed that the
Appellant has miserabty failed to explain the same in this Hon' Court'

4. That the reasons for this abnormal delay as stated by the Appellant are
not all tenable in the eyes of the law. lt is very poor explanation by Appellant
that delay is due to partly administrative and partly due to misplaced
documents which are not yet traced. Due to the gross negligence of the

Appellant and his administration the delay is done and again Appellant said

that applicant-respondent not at all entitled to claim amount. This is strongly

objected by Applicant-respondent. lt is the outlook of appellant to see the

failure of subordinate individual officers and it is internal official activities.
 , ,bq
I
r_f

That the submission of Appellant stating that due to fault of the'

Sub.ordinates and the individual officers, the company would be affected

has no merit of law whatsoever .Hence in the larger interest ofJustice, the

delay shall not be condoned.

l

5. That the Appellant has admitted that the certified copy of thl Judgment

and Order under PGA case No. 51 of 2018 is received on 19.12.2019.A1so it is

the admission on the part of Appellant that 250 davs have gone after date of
Judgment and order in this case. Again Appellant has given admission to the

fact that after deducting statutory period of limitation i.e. 60 days, there is

delay of 195 days in filing this instant appeal. Because the Appellant has

given admission as mentioned as above, there is strong objection by

Respondent to condone such inordinate delay, and the provisions of The

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 do not allow this delay and hence to meet the

ends of justice this delay cannot be condoned.

Prevcr

Therefore, the respondent most humbly prays that the Appellant's

Application for condonation of delay rnay kindly be rejected with heavy cost

in the interest of justice.

Dated:2lltl zau
WW
Respondent

Thro (Vishwambhar Hanumant Kalal)

(Adv.

ffi
(Adv.Chaitanya N.ltkari)
 rl

{
i

I
I
u>

e'),
r ^\^
1
L b:
DELAY PCA,Ito/7/2020

I MHIC240 00 0132020

i
E:iiE
.\ rj.{-+:
t-

EIILT+q
i

Presented on : 37.72.201,9
I
Registered on : 37.72.20L9
Decided on : 01.L2.2O
I
Duration : 011 23D

U
I
I
( I.A.TUR BEN CH ). T-ATUR
q
q
'q"
I P ozo
I o
M4
4
The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
3 a Distribution Compa-uy, L1d':,,,.,,
:ll
e
,F
LA1 .1,,", ,,, t:,
-VERSUS-

Vishwambha.r tKalal'
Age 162 \ts, Occu. : Rerd. Sr. Technician
NeEr trn'at Papad Karkhana,
Ttrljapure Nagar, Nandeid Naka,
Iratur.. Ti1'. & Dist. tatur.
RESPONDENT

CORAM

Dhanaji A. Jadhav, Member

CI.AIM

Application for condonation of delay.

d-
 ,>6 ')'- OC,lEiLSgryNilUzqz!

*:;il-4G
Appellant
Nimburge' Ld' Advocate for
Shri. A'M'
Respondent
Ld' Advocate for
;.-.ltkari'
;. *---t-: -- - --

$/sVU) of'
condonation application
This is a deiay

PaYment of Gratuiry Hct' 1972'

the
are as under
:
of *re applicatron
The brief facts

3A No'51/2018
oz I
*oooluin:::::.ffijT:.lno,,uoou,.o,,,,
aipeilant before
the r'ol']"I'...",te
notrce'
., d.
against service of .'tl)'^.".
'^lppr.u,ioncamero !'i d i'
,"i","u".:Tri^Il j;t,fji]-ry;ffi 'i'?*\
aPPellant failbd
to aP1
Judgment dated 12'04' Zolg. ' 1''" '

be allowed ex-part:by

' :I to lsrow about the

^ainP to
to appellant' it
came
03. 'According
of the copv of the Judsment
by
,.o*,riu, cnily afrcr 3ro;;;r
O'' *ntnitt-::::tl":"ffijltT;
"* "'0"'
'
r"rpo1dm't There ts
filed this Appeal'
rr,"'o'9 and It is due to failure
on the
"" nu * Oti'ierate'
to file the Appeal' with
officers who failed to act
individual
part of subordinates'
resPonsibiliry'

\
 /
\T
-:3:- DELAY PGA/N1/7/2020
i
i 04. Respondent /original applicant appeared, file his
reply below Exh.U-2 and denied all the adverse allegations. It is
I
contented that, Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is not
applicable. Appellant failed to ger notice of pGA No.S1,z201g
from its inward clerk. Respondent is not at fault. was
l
negligent hence, ex-porte Judgment is passed. no
i
I
sufficient cause. Ir is prayed to dismiss th ,\.
I

\=l#b*u-\
I

I
I 05. Having gone through the
partles, and having considered the both
Advocates, following points arise for my I
record my findings with reasons to foljow:

Sr.No. POI.NTS FINDINGS

Ht .(: .i
01 Does- appellar,t - rriakes out' In th e neganve
.t
,4 F sufficient cause to condon e the,
I

a o i
d'd.ay:?
a
aL 02 -_ t order ? As per final order.

REASONS

t No.1 d 2:-

06. Heard Ld. Advocate A. M. Nimburge for the

appellant and Ld. Advocate C. N. Itkari for respondent
at length.
 .4. _
DELAY PGAA{o/12020

application'
it seems to
of the
the title ciause
07. From
Limitation Act' 1963' The
of the
been filed under t";;
have
s".,i**s j;l,i;';.,':,;;;
"ro***
Appeal under
or
section
:*m:T
':';";;r" High court ta
J. L'
rlL',vr- so*uuy
integra'
is no more res ,:^^:^r.re? of Labout 2007(5)
Ltd' Vs Dy' Comrnissioner
Morrison hdia
n* "o*l"u .n":
Bom'c'R'554
a self containeu urvs"'
:^::'l I.:T'X":";
special Act
and Section 5
of prov is.ions of
Act' it amounts to exciusion
Gratuiry
Act'
of Limitation

08. It means' the' provisiot:':1rT:;o;J:J;

Limitation Act' 1963 are nor
of'h"'n"*"*
tc
applrcable
of GratuityAct ' 1972' as such'
the rt
.,S.c1(
,l:iP'-1.
Section 717)
: :i,-.F(fr
r*\
,**,,.^,,*"*lli*;1"#fl J'-TH:"1ffi t.A_t'-".4x

7(7) of
of Section
S"t1isn 7(7) i
U" to rePro$reqe
""2f of the amount
of Gratuity
-

: Determination
'.,iSe'ctiora'7
T).

Z)

3)

4)
s)
o) c.)

ixS uu'" "', J

7)
fJ,,::'?xl trf;:;:lniJ'1ilH'*r \\
 4,q
(--) I

5 DEL AY P G A-/t-l o/7/2O2O

the receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the

appropriate Government or such other authority as may
be specified by the appropriate Government in this
behalf :
I

Provided that the appropriate Government or the

I

i appellate authority, as ttle case may be, may, +[ it is

I
satisfied that the appeliant was prevented by iiu€cient
cause foom preferring the appeal wi thix; -the 'said
period of sixty days, extend the said peri od a
period of sixty days.
\
Provided further that no appeal by an enrp,fo.y.er
admitted unless ar the time
appellant either produces a
Authority to the effect t-hat the
with him an amounr equal amoriat gratuity
required to be depsEted SU'D:SeCtlOn (4), or
deposits with the appella.rtr':authority such amount.

)llr
u
09. In the presen't matter, it
is. undisputed that PGA
No.5112018 .;!.qfore Co:u,roI*furg :::Authoriry/Labour Court is
e t,
decided ehpcrte. In the app'lteation itself, it is mentioned that,
l$
to appelJqnt herern was served with notice on 22.03.2018,
r.,-,\,,
however npneJ appeare.d which resulted to ex-parte Judgment
,:
decluling thari:resp.oladent is entitled to receive garuity amount
6;89#6s/-.

10. Ld. Advocate N. M. Nimburge for appellant argued

that, when respondent furnished the copy of the Judgment on
07.12.2019, appellant came to know about the matter,
therefore according to him, the Appeal fiied on 31.72.2079 is

"\
 6:-

of 60 days' However' as an
within the period
of liriiitefibh
appiication is filed'
the delay condonation
abundant Precaution'

contented that'
the
Ld' Adv' ltkari
11. As against this'
within 60 days or extended
appeal ought to
t'u'" Ut* filed
fiIe the
The appeliant.failed-to
60 days period'
period of further of nrore than
period' There is delay
Appeal within
tf'"
"ip#a
the APPeal'
ZrO auY' in Preferring
- of
drscussed that' applicalion
1,2. I have already
1963 ro the present
I of t'irnltation Act'
provisions of Section of
is excluded.ll
condon"'t' "ppri"tion "o*otution
delay
Section 7U) or'"*';'
;; *** l:X:r"rt:Tt:;;::l FI
{:.r/:

day's to' the aggneve

time limit'of 60 the date of
nr""U.t
sub;; 4 by Appeal from &,'
the order un4eE opportuniry
nt"*'"i*"* s"ition 7(7) gives ?iit o.
receipt of oiaei' -file extended period
of
'' the Appeal within
.o;:*1'.:b:H: cause ror the
I;;rt "- si,o*""ffi'ient

delaY'. .._

is
rn which arises
for the consideration
the conuoriin g
bv
**r*r',#"::::':: *" o rd er'l Ju d sment

constitute sufficient cause' The

would
Authoriry/Labo" Co"" more than one
no for
question is certainly a\
answer to this
own contention that' iCs Inward Clerk N
reasons. It is appellant's \-
No' 51/2018 on 22'03'2018' However'
received notice of PGA
 41
i "a
-;7:- DELAY PGAA[o/V2020
I

i it did not deem it necessary to appear before the Controlling

Authority ,/Labour Court. It is mentioned in present application
that, ex-parte order came to be passed on 23.70.2018 after
l
I
seven months from the date of service of notice. During these 7
I
months also, appellant did not appear before the Coagolling
j
Authority/Labour Court. This shows lethargi Itausal or
I negiigent approach of the appellanr. The app b1 s

staff for not appearing in the e

I information of the matter. However by itb

l appellant would not ger any immuniry fiom thu clutttles of

I
Section 7(D. Fact remains that, the impugned'Ur,rffient came
to be passed on 72.04.20l,9;,and present aii4ig.agmn came to be
I

filed on 37.12.2019 after B montfis and tZ days. If the period

of 60 days plus further 60 days given under Secrion 7(Z) is
deducted, rtft]l.r",.ulpqas,,delay of 4 months and. 17 days to
fiie the Op.p."g+, There is no-saris'fdctory explanation putforth by
m appellairt to eond;onC delay. Lhw helps vigilant and not to the
dil,igerft.-Hence, the said delay can not be condoned.

14. ,,,, ,, +Appgllant having notice of PGA No,51l2018 slept

over.it's':ri'gfits'for more than 8 months as such, it does not lie in
it's rnouth that the Judgment is tx-parte or inward clerk did not
show the notice or documents, therefore, there is delay. The
appeilant cannot blame respondent for having supplied copy of
the Judgment on 07.12.2079. Ar one hand, appellanr seeks
mercy of the Court ciaiming it to be a Government Company
 \* -:B:- DELAY PGA/t'{o/1/2020

on the other
public Exchequer' However
and having involved
its responsibiliry to be
more
ignores
hand, it conveniently is not
Therefore' appellant
to tot]* mafters'
diligent in regard
anY ground'
for anY relief on
"*"U
tried to show that' the words employed'under
15. It is
of receipt of
from the date
OO days
Section 717) are'l'itftin within 60
opp"ur tan be filed
order,, wouid mean,nl' 1:'t*"
In rfiy
considered
date o''"t"'" of order'"
days from the Grar'rr'inE: such
an
is misconceived'
opinion, the said 'ubrnnUo" would
or appellant herein
oppornrniry to such "*"" """.benefits of itll of *lltj"
mean to a1low

Appellant failed
best known.
himto mke
to appear' in PG"\ No" SlZZlre for

tr*.Irol*, it canrr": '^::-:*efits

statutory period
the reasons
of it's own
of 120
ffi
t lE\.
,I*qt
after the
There is' r'nuch delay
wronS' of Gratutry
7(T ofPayment
days within *" *"** of Section
I do not find any
-*;be coridoned' Hence'
Act, 19VZ and'i?'ee Adv. Nimburge
for
advanced by Ld'
*erfrs 'io- ttte arguments
appellant'

that' appellant has not

to mention
16-". ".lt-is material Authoriry that' he
of *" Controlling
p-&'l*""d the certificat" this
of the gratuiry while filiing
amount
has deposited the Ld' Predecessor was
reveals that' mY
application' Record amount' Pursuant to ,S
that
required to direct
appellant to deposit
dated 03'02'2020'
$
O*"* Exh'U-1 \
bY
those directions "'U*
 q
9:- DELAY PGNNo/1/2020
{
.i
I

appellant deposited the amount of Pts.8,42,870/- on

78.02.2020. It means, the amount has not been deposited
within the meaning of second proviso to Secrion 7(7) of
l
Payment of Gratuity Act, 7972. The overall resuit of the above

,
discussion is that, there are no merits in the app.3ligation.

Therefore, I answer Point No.1 accordingly and iq _ehs*uer to

ri..r, L
Point No.2, I pass following order.
-i\
-.t4. .,.. iiilita.
I : Yn 'aE6 Bti
'1
't, -

ORDER
The application stands dismissed.
't,

(Dh av)
Dare :- 07.72.2021 Mem r
.l
Place :- Latur. IndListria.l Court, Latur

Arsued On : 3O/17/2A2I'-
o Judgment Dictated on :07/12/.2027' .

$)
Judgment Iranscr{hed-oq : Direcdy dlctated on computer, hence no transcription-

Checked &Signqd on : : 07/72/2027

Certtled Tlrte &t

8F.,, *" *-;;":-: .i t.
_ GjT-,za
t $7 Roc -?) -l -L* -?-!A L.
---- I

,di, ;;;;;",r,, o. - 3 l-tz l-?P3-,1

g€ oiiofdsjlbour-, .P4'<+/. *
-
o
ffifr:Sfy,,,tti.c:7,')
o ffi?; rt'j = sI)-tA'ihn. o,.
a 1

,11... 2-l
+ttsdsftfli
a*ri8ssrHCtrrta$ftlla
=-*at$." -
I t"1

h-\ B
0 L,4'
 r
t1 t1

I
a
'a 41
IN THE HONOURABLE INDUSTRIAL CO URT AT LATUR

Delav Application PGA No. 01 of 2020 U-,

Shri Vishwambhar Hanumant Kalal -.Applicant

Versus

The Exec utive Engineer Respondent

MSEDCL
0s l'lx"
cfl
0 .l-\
.vla.P
Pt. ! +, Application for perm iss ion for the with drawal of amount of Gratuitv

J q)
,{'
May lt Please Your Honour,
i/ i>..- ,'
The undersigned employee in this case most respectfully and
a

most humbly submits as herein under.

That the above case had been filed in this Hon. Court by the
c,
respondent. That this Hon.Court is pleased to dismiss the above

application as per the Judgment and Order passed by this Hon.Court on

01. 12.2021.

That as per relevant legal provisions, the appellant had deposited thc
amount of Rs.8,42,870/- (Rs.Eight lacs forty two thousand eight hundred
seventy only) towards gratuity payable to employee.

That the application for clt'lay condonation in the said appeal has heerr
dismissed by this l.lon.Court, hence the appeal filed by applicant is

automatically disposed off .

That the amount of gratuity payable to employee .:s per law and
deposited in this Hon.Court is required to be withdrawn ilnd bc paid to

e mployee.
q
ftcio r c .., 12 /, 2021
@
Executive Engineer. MSEDC _fr_
Co.Ltd Mshwambhar
Hanumant Kalal] qt:d ftyn-ff
fr-e 3rd fufl6
18//02/2020 3I-crA The Executive
Engineer, MSEDC
Co.Ltd. Latur qrfi tt. qsT,TqTn
ffi O. oi_r ft_ryq
03/02/2020 strAYl]qqrd S €ldea-o"fl, qrn ftl}.sT qTq)rd
gq-El-.Jr* TdqEq s _
8.42.870 // (eier0_ eifa dRs AEn&$
rrdr qre) q.qT ffi n-+{rd r+oa
6qrq 3rrdt
am-r 6.Tro
09/20i9-20 k{rm 18/02/2020 errqrd qt.qi
'r-{ rql
AqfuE Ffiq qrrff erfi qqr ?ffi +ft. cI. {.,iqrtrq.rA
erT-tpj ffiro rc,/os/2ozo erq& rqoq
Is,n +ft.d @
sdtl6{rn Tffi }q srd oqro agozoozssos
$-<t_q r+-d-q
tqi.tch 22//os/ 2020
lHR 5ro aft.o q,Sq_qd d_o qr6,
rlc f-6. GtTEpi oi6fl. ardi te) g;Tfroqrd s{r-d-d 3ilt-,
rr--cs srqtTa {ftFc fr.-6d11ld) 3r-d nTq1 dddT
3G
3rtqrr,ffq e.r(r

uz\ .

eTqlnrq. ar{i.
(>
That the emPloyee is eliSible to get the amount of gratuity as
2

per law and

\6
Hence the
affidavit in support of this application is submitted hereby'
applicant Prays as herein below.

Praver

Therefore, it is prayed to kindly allow this instant application and the

deposited amount of gratuity may kindly paid to the applicant'

Date:L0.l-2.2021

Throu

WL
Vishwambhar Hanumant Kalal
(Ad .N.ltkari)

Advocate for a PPlica nt

lJ_ . l,^^.,'\
d\ v-
9 -<+ ,{l
A )r+-J C' ,v-t lct 682
(,1t
@

UsA ^?P\ \'4"") *1'6 tu

tr+ h&1
P"rd*
*) v-1 {-s-14'on'c}

olc-91 '.)
f1 ofur h ccO I L-le,'
i.\
J
v,o/)
.J L,s li ilrJ,-
rv) Lni'-)
(-" P,
+J,
r{ r5 t zT"wl-
1J4 N'
hit "*A
,.o.f \^ l^/J
\!
P
-<e c-e)
,r.ut.
\,'
.
l)" ^^-l.D
Or-a'()v-
-i \6.L"u'u y+ \v\ \," n
)d^-!-
-I ta J*P H,^
l-r,
o

h(..
u"^r
r - t r'QP
/r- t\f ov-v
.A-
) 'Y* t-L
e.U
_. {-
\

n<
v'{ o
U url G >-" )
4a)'
pLo t',*^r 8
ol Le-!'
\Jf\
\) \
u--r'e/- g 4L
^n)
11o't ?L .

(
,r")c-'n' LA t -
(.a,4 .f<;
(r+4' ,,..o\
',.^t \f)
\A
\1
2fo L" *l', 4XJlJ "-!-?)
I \Q-
l"r V
4vr' \o
 .*' ) (h ,

W t

srthnitl'e,/
,A JoLu*rJr: (o^nrPlr'anu
td
% anourf w deqou
1"0"
a
"1 ln
n, t'A* '1fr,
>d)
6
"tor'*ont n YnP affioanl of Cl"t
YRrPr\a 4 h^/
/n ,*7 7'rttma'Ln (/z
l^', ,eb''r0n
fr ,L"l L bu /n /
il. dr^* ant n
"l,e-ri,
LO4
()D'i a
U

lr rT Au"J'r trui d
frfl ltt J ,/,
nd'P rP W w- C{awafl
Yat- utvurl
/,,,
t0rr,
ilrte tl T1"r/ l^A hauw,tr
UJ r
lJr)u{rt tHba"rlA ? 1
UV A/n C.<4
d hLi
-t, tl|'rkln^^n
6 enrlt(ul
til6D
lulq 1i* aj,L'W
1
C

(trY) HLftI'
L 5 rTtr) )

C^L A a) o tn
l+*'vL )u
V)

"rJ^*
a
''D
Ailt'n
V U
Y\Q^^ X i, ttl,f,'*h'on

ntu*tr"\ M \!

,l.l' r
{-ot ) {,ltlzz-- {nb 4u

'--.--.'.
n*rff F*0.
- -.f
'l-k! -:.
r! ,-I-',' !7--''".t t r)ttl :',t2
1'"''l
'6r't - " ' "y'''
 q>- A

o
Read application, report and documents produced by

Respondent. It seems that, complainant has already

received gratuity amount of Rs. 5,16,68 zl- and it is credited

in his Bank Account. Even, today complainant who is

present before Court conceded that, the amount is received.

The amount is paid to complainant in June zo16, before the

judgment of Labour Court. Hence, there must increase in

calculation of Labour Court. Hence, the amount lying in

Court i.e. Rs.8,4z,87ol- can not be paid to complainant.

Hence, application is rejected. The amount be returned to

respondent.

rolrlzz sd/-
 )3
\T'
Submitted

The amount is deposited towards compliance of legal

provision though the claim has received his gratuity amount
at the time of his retirement. In such circumstances, the
claimant is deriving double benefit or pa)'rnent of gratuity
twice which is not permissible. The claimant has falsely
stated that he have not received any amount towards
payment of gratuitY.

Therefore no circumstances, claimant is entitled to

withdraw the said amount. Similarly, the order of Hon'ble
Judge is in the process of challenge'

Therefore, the application is strongly objected'

Dated:- 6lorlzz sd/-

NimbrgeA.M.
Advocate for ResPondent .