GANGUBAI BHAGWAN SALAWADE Vs. CHIMANABAI SURYABHAN SALAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition challenges the order of the industrial Court, Solapur acting as the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (for short, 'the Act'' ). the Petitioner is the widow of the deceased bhagwan Salawade, who was employed as an Helper with maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short* 'mseb')The Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and Petitioner Nos. 2? 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased. After the death of Bhagwan Salawade on 1. 5. 1996? while in service, the petitioners submitted an application on 30. 5. 1996 to the employer of the deceased claiming the gratuity amount payable to him. Since the nomination was made in favour of Respondent No. 1 who is the mother of the deceased, the employer deposited an amount of Rs. 655615/- before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity act.

(2.) AN application bearing No. 396 of 1996 was filed by the MSEB stating that since there was a dispute regarding the person who should receive the gratuity the amount was being deposited by them before the controlling Authority. The Petitioners as well as respondent NO. 1 filed their respective say in the matter. The Petitioners claimed that since they were the legal heirs of the deceased, the amount should be paid over to them. According to Respondent No. 1, since she was the mother and the nominees she was entitled to the gratuity and the amount should not be paid to the petitioners. On 29. 9. 1998, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act held that the amount deposited should be equitably distributed between the petitioners and Respondent No. 1. The Controlling authority was of the view that the heirs of the deceased and respondent No. 1 were entitled to a share and the controlling Authority therefore, apportioned the amount. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal under the Payment of gratuity Act claiming that she was entitled to the entire amount of gratuity to the exclusion of others since she was the nominee. According to Respondent No. 1 despite the marriage of the deceased with Petitioner no. 1 in 19835 he had nominated Respondent No. 1 on 10. 5. 1986 thereby indicating that the entire amount should be paid over to the mother. The appellate authority had considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarbati Devi v/s. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346 and held that since there is a nomination in the name of the mother, she was entitled to the entire amount of gratuity and the petitioners were not to be paid ' any amounts. It is this order which is challenged in the present petition.

(3.) MR. GODBOLE, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the nomination cannot override the provisions of the Hindu law which is the personal law governing the Petitioners and Respondent no. 1. According to him, the nominee merely holds the amount in trust and the nominee does not have an exclusive right over the amount. He places reliance on the case of Sarbati devi (supra) where it has been held that the nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount from the insurer. He further places reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Gopal Vishnu Ghatnekar v/s. Madhukar Vishnu bhatnekar, 1982 Mh. L. J. 65 where it has been held under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act that a nomination made by a person in favour of another does not create a title in the property. It is only meant to provide for the interregnum between the death and the full administration of the estate and does not confer any permanent right to the property forming part of estate of the deceased. Ha further submits that the Act being a. self contained code? ,s held in the State of punjab v/s. Labour Court, Juilunder and Ors. , (1980) SCC 4, the Controlling Authority has powers to decide the dispute between the nominee and the heirs of the deceased. He submits that under section 7 of the Act. , the Controlling Authority can determine the person who is entitled to the gratuity. The Petitioners ought not to be driven to file a suit against Respondent No. 1 to claim their right in the estate of the deceased. He further submits that the Controlling Authority had rightly apportioned the amount between the heirs; respondent No. 1 was also given a share in the gratuity amount. He submits that just as under the Motor-Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is empowered to award just compensation and the tribunal is empowered to specify the person or parsons to whom the compensation shall be paid, thereby permitting apportionment of the compensation awarded, the Controlling Authority is also similarly powered. He relies on the judgment in the case of V. Sivalingam v/s. Dakshinamurthy and ors. , AIR 1993 KERALA 83.