VASANT B. BHUJBAL Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith with consent of Counsel.

(2.) This writ petition challenges an order passed the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the Respondent herein from an order passed by the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity to the Petitioner herein.

(3.) Since May 1968, the Petitioner was working as a 'conductor' with the Respondent-corporation. On 29 August 1993, whilst the Petitioner was on duty, his ST bus was checked by Inspector of the Respondent when the Petitioner herein was found to have given tickets to each of ten passengers of a denomination lesser by 50 ps. The Respondent thereafter issued a charge-sheet and conducted a departmental enquiry against the Petitioner. After such enquiry, and after accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Respondent- corporation issued to the Petitioner a show cause notice as to why he should not be discharged from the services. The Petitioner thereafter approached the Labour Court at Pune by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice. He was granted ad-interim relief, by which, the Respondent-corporation was restrained from acting on the show cause notice or terminating services of the Petitioner in any manner. This relief was confirmed by the Labour Court at Pune after hearing both parties. Subsequently, at the stage of final hearing, the Petitioner's complaint was dismissed by the Labour Court. The Petitioner thereafter approached the Industrial Court at Pune in revision. The Industrial Court confirmed the order of the Labour Court holding the enquiry to be legal and proper. By then, that is, in or about April 2003, the Petitioner crossed the age of superannuation. The Petitioner, in the premises, applied for gratuity by approaching the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority, by its judgment and order dated 2 July 2006, allowed the Petitioner's application directing the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,231 along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from 29 July 2004 until payment or realization. The Respondent thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who, as noticed above, by its impugned order dated 25 March 2009, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Controlling Authority. That is how the Petitioner has approached this court invoking writ jurisdiction of this court.