TULARAM S/O ADKUJI BHOGARE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NASHIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties. 2] The challenge in petition is to the common order dated 20.1.2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Bhandara in Revision Application (ULP) Nos.76/2015 and 77/2015 thereby setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court, Gondia in Miscellaneous Application (ULP) No.2/2014 directing non-applicants to pay Rs.6,79,305/- to applicant. 3] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in brief as under :

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Grader with respondent no.1 and discharged his duties with respondent nos.2 and 3. He was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the year 2012. He retired from service on 30.4.2013 and thereby rendered his services for more than 34 years. On retirement, petitioner was entitled to receive retiral benefits. Respondent nos.2 and 3 sent proposal for sanction of retirement benefits to petitioner. Proposal was sanctioned and pension is paid to petitioner regularly. However, proposal for sanction of gratuity and encashment of leave sent by respondent nos.2 and 3 to respondent no.1 though sanctioned, amount of gratuity and encashment of 295 days earned leave was not paid to petitioner. On the contrary, respondent no.1 issued a letter dated 28.11.2013 and directed recovery of Rs.6,17,833/- from the petitioner from the amount of gratuity and leave encashment payable to him.

(3.) Petitioner then moved an application under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 and under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before Labour Court, Gondia. Vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2015, Labour Court partly allowed the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the respondents to pay Rs.6,79,305/- to petitioner within thirty days from the date of order. The court, however, declined to grant interest to applicant on the amount due.