In the light of the judicial pronouncements referred above,
and after having considered the abusive language used by the
petitioner and as proved in the enquiry, I am of the view that the
said words do not fall within the definition of minor mis-conducts or
mis-conducts of a technical character.
The past service record of the petitioner is blemished to
some extent. Quantum of punishment which is based on the
subjective assessment of an individual workman, in such situations
does not deserve any interference. In the case of Bharat Forge
Limited Vs. Uttam Nakhate, reported at (2005) 2 SCC 489, the
Apex Court has held that interference in cases where the acts
committed by a workman being of abusive nature should be
deprecated.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6871 OF 2013
Balasaheb Ambadas Dhockchawale,
Versus
Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd.,
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATED : 17th APRIL, 2014
Read original judgment here;click here
Citation 2014(5) MHLJ 512
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective sides at length.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and the matter is taken up for
final hearing with the consent of the parties.
2. The respondent is a Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, and is a factory under the Factories Act,
1948. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is
applicable to the respondent-company.
3. The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent in
the year 1987. It is contended that his past service record till the
year 2000, was totally unblemished and blot less. He was
confirmed in employment on 12-03-1992.
4. He had met with an accident arising out of and in the course
of employment in the first shift on 23-09-1987, while working on a
nozzle machine. The respondent-Company was then known by
name Balaji Tubes. His left hand got trapped in a machine and he
suffered fractures at five to six places. He was admitted at Akshay
Hospital by the respondent, operated upon and kept as an indoor
patient for about a month. He had taken treatment for about 8 to 9
months as an outdoor patient. After recovering from his injuries, he
was given employment in the Store’s Department. He had also
preferred a claim for compensation before the Labour Court
bearing W/C No. 49/1988.
5. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour in 1992, which was settled on 09-03-1992
and an individual settlement dated 11-03-1992 was signed. The
respondent initially agreed to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation
and to provide permanent work subject to the petitioner
withdrawing the application W/C No. 49/1988. It was in this way
that the said dispute was settled. However, the petitioner was not
given payment for the period from 1987 to 1992. The petitioner has
further narrated several acts of unfair practices alleged to have
been committed by the respondent, in his complaint preferred
before the Labour Court.
6. The respondent issued a charge-sheet dated 09-12-2001 to
the petitioner alleging therein several acts amounting to misconducts
under the Model Standing Orders. Copy of the enquiry
report is tendered across the bar, which contains the text of the
charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. Same is marked as ‘X’ for
identification and is taken on record.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the said
charge-sheet a domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately an
order of dismissal by way of punishment was issued on
28-04-2002.
8. The petitioner preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 53/2002 before
the Labour Court at Ahmednagar. Issues as regards the fairness of
the enquiry as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer were
raised. The respondent had opposed the complaint by filing its say
and written statement. Contention of the petitioner was that he has
been victimised on account of the litigation that was initiated
against the respondent. His past record was clean until the year
2000, when the respondent started harassing the petitioner by
levelling false charges against him. It was contended that the
enquiry deserves to be set aside and the order of dismissal be
quashed.
9. By order dated 06-02-2008, the Labour Court decided the
preliminary issues and concluded that the domestic enquiry was
conducted in a fair and proper manner. Revision Petition bearing
(ULP) Nos. 04/2010 and 06/2011 were preferred by the petitioner
and the respondent respectively. By a common judgment dated
29-02-2012, the Revision Petition filed by the respondent-employer
was allowed. The Revision filed by the petitioner was rendered
redundant since the order of the Labour Court was quashed and
set aside and the matter was remanded back for deciding the issue
of perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
10. The Labour Court after considering the preliminary issues a
fresh, came to a conclusion vide its order dated 10-07-2012 that
the findings of the Enquiry Officer were fair and proper and could
not be termed as perverse. Ultimately, by the judgment dated
28-08-2012, the complaint filed by the petitioner was partly allowed.
The punishment awarded to him was held to be shockingly
disproportionate. He was directed to be reinstated in employment
with continuity but without back wages.
11. The respondent herein as well as the petitioner preferred
Revision ULP Nos. 93/2012 and 99/2012 respectively before the
Industrial Court at Ahmednagar. The petitioner by his Revision
Petition prayed for full back wages and the respondent by their
Revision Petition prayed for quashing and setting aside of the
judgment of the Labour Court and the dismissal of the complaint.
12. By its judgment and order dated 25-03-2013, the Revision
Petition filed by the respondent-employer was allowed by the
Industrial Court and the Revision Petition of the petitioner was
dismissed. The judgment and order of the Labour Court dated
28-08-2012 was quashed and set aside. The complaint filed by the
petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment,
the petitioner has preferred this petition.
13. Contention of the petitioner is that the charges mentioned in
the charge-sheet have been exaggerated. Five false charges have
been levelled upon the petitioner and one charge has been
disproved. The Labour Court had correctly awarded reinstatement
and continuity of service, but had erred in not granting full back
wages. It is further contended that the Industrial Court has got
carried away by the text of the charges and the clauses of the
Model Standing Orders invoked in the charge-sheet. Because the
petitioner had become an eye-sore in view of having initiated
litigation against the respondent-Management, that the respondent
had become vindictive. The charges levelled are on account of
vindictive attitude of the respondent.
14. It is further submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of the
Industrial Court under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971,
is limited and cannot be expanded as if the Industrial Court was
exercising Appeal jurisdiction.
15. It is, therefore, submitted that even if on the one hand the
enquiry is held to be fair and proper and the findings are not held to
be perverse, on the other hand the punishment awarded to the
petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. If the judicial conscience
of the Court is shocked by the proportionality of the punishment,
the Court has every jurisdiction to mould the punishment into such
a form that justice would be done to both the parties.
16. It is, therefore, the submission of the petitioner that an
appropriate punishment could have been awarded by the Industrial
Court by moulding the dismissal order. The Industrial Court has
taken an extreme view which has resulted in causing civil death to
the petitioner.
17. It is further submitted that the petitioner is out of employment
from 28-04-2002 and is presently about fifty three (53) years old.
He has about five (5) more years left in employment, as the
retirement age in the respondent factory is fifty eight (58) years. It
is also contended that the Industrial Court ought not to have upheld
the order of dismissal could have converted the same into
discharge which would have fetched the petitioner retiral benefits.
It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and the
impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.
18. Shri V.N. Upadhye, learned Advocate for the respondent has
submitted that the past service record of the petitioner is highly
blemished. He has drawn my attention to the copy of his written
statement filed in the Labour Court. In paragraph 8 of the written
statement, seven (7) instances have been narrated to indicate that
the past service record of the petitioner is blemished.
19. It is further submitted that as a principle of law when the
domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper and when the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are not declared to be perverse, all
allegations of victimisation, be it legal or factual, stand disproved.
Since the charges are held to be proved and the conclusions of the
Enquiry Officer are not interfered with, allegations of victimisation
have to fail.
20. In his submissions, therefore, what remains within the
adjudicatory powers and jurisdiction of the Labour Court is the
proportionality of the punishment. If it shocks the judicial
conscience of the Court, the same could be interfered with. He,
however, submits that the jurisdiction to do so is extremely limited
and narrow. It is to be left to the employer and its subjective
assessment as to whether the charges proved against a workman
are of a minor nature or of a major character. Past blemished
service record would aggravate the seriousness and the gravity of
the mis-conducts proved against the workman under Standing
Order 25(6).
21. Shri Upadhye, has further submitted that the charges levelled
upon the petitioner and those which are proved are grave and
serious in nature. The Labour Court had erred in granting
reinstatement with continuity to the petitioner oblivious of the
seriousness and the gravity of the proved mis-conducts. This was
neither permissible nor could have possibly been done. The
Labour Court over stepped its jurisdiction and had shown
misplaced sympathy towards the petitioner.
22. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the dismissal be
converted into discharge in order to avail of retiral benefits, Shri
Upadye has submitted that from the date of appointment till the
date of his dismissal, the petitioner would be entitled for Gratuity.
23. Having heard the learned Advocates extensively, I have gone
through the entire petition paper book with their assistance.
24. The charges levelled upon the petitioner and which are
reproduced in the Enquiry Officer’s report have been considered.
The abusive language used by the petitioner appears to be of a
serious nature. Not only was the authority of a Senior Officer been
questioned, foul words have also been used against him and his
mother. The petitioner has been held guilty of committing misconducts,
under Standing Order 24(a) (k) (l) and (x) of the Model
Standing Orders. He has been exonerated of the charge under
Standing Order 24(h). He has been held guilty of insubordination,
disobedience, disorderly and indecent behaviour, acts subversive
of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the
Establishment and refusal to accept the charge-sheet or a lawful
communication from the employer. He has been held guilty of not
working in an entire shift, using abusive and foul language against
his superiors, indulging in arguments with superior and challenging
their authority.
25. So far as the past record of the petitioner is concerned, he
was placed under suspension for four (4) days by an order dated
15-09-2000 and he was suspended pending enquiry with regard to
mis-behaviour with a senior supervisor by order dated 25-11-2001.
26. Since the enquiry were held to be fair and proper and the
findings are not declared to be perverse, the proportionality of the
punishment was, therefore, required to be gone into. This has
been done by the Industrial Court. Based on its conclusions, the
Industrial Court has held that the mis-conducts proved against the
petitioner are grave and serious character.
27. I have gone through the reasons adduced by the Industrial
Court and have also considered the charges proved against the
petitioner. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Sahil Khan Vs. M/s. Hashmat and Company, reported at 2007 LLR,
217, upheld the dismissal order issued by the employer. The
workman had abused the employer by calling him a thief since the
employer had carried out deduction from his monthly wages on
ground of absentee. This Court, therefore, concluded that the said
behaviour on the part of the workman abusing the employer has to
be construed to be a grave and serious charge.
28. In the case of Premier Automobiles Vs. H.S.T. Hedge and
others, reported at 2007 LLR 118 and Jarnail Singh Vs. P.O.
Labour Court, Patila, reported at 2007 LLR 245, it has been
concluded that shouting slogans inside the cabin, abusing in filthy
language and creating riotous and disorderly behaviour amounts to
grave and serious acts of mis-conducts.
29. In the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd., Vs. A.
Unnikrishnan, reported at 1994 (II) LLJ 888, the Apex Court had an
occasion to deal with acts of abusive nature. It was concluded that
the said acts are serious in nature.
30. In the light of the judicial pronouncements referred above,
and after having considered the abusive language used by the
petitioner and as proved in the enquiry, I am of the view that the
said words do not fall within the definition of minor mis-conducts or
mis-conducts of a technical character.
31. The past service record of the petitioner is blemished to
some extent. Quantum of punishment which is based on the
subjective assessment of an individual workman, in such situations
does not deserve any interference. In the case of Bharat Forge
Limited Vs. Uttam Nakhate, reported at (2005) 2 SCC 489, the
Apex Court has held that interference in cases where the acts
committed by a workman being of abusive nature should be
deprecated.
32. In this back drop, the punishment of dismissal from service
needs to be held to be commensurate to the gravity and the
seriousness of the mis-conducts proved against the petitioner. The
past service record, therefore, does not operate as a mitigating
factor, rather it has the effect of an aggravating factor.
33. In the light of above, I, therefore, do not find any merit in this
petition. However, the fact that the Gratuity of the petitioner being
payable from the date of appointment till his dismissal, will have to
be paid by the respondent, if still not paid. In the event, the said
Gratuity is not paid, the respondent shall pay the same along with
interest from the date of dismissal till the date of actual payment at
the rate of 8% per annum.
34. With these directions, the petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged. No order as to costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
and after having considered the abusive language used by the
petitioner and as proved in the enquiry, I am of the view that the
said words do not fall within the definition of minor mis-conducts or
mis-conducts of a technical character.
The past service record of the petitioner is blemished to
some extent. Quantum of punishment which is based on the
subjective assessment of an individual workman, in such situations
does not deserve any interference. In the case of Bharat Forge
Limited Vs. Uttam Nakhate, reported at (2005) 2 SCC 489, the
Apex Court has held that interference in cases where the acts
committed by a workman being of abusive nature should be
deprecated.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6871 OF 2013
Balasaheb Ambadas Dhockchawale,
Versus
Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd.,
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATED : 17th APRIL, 2014
Read original judgment here;click here
Citation 2014(5) MHLJ 512
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective sides at length.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and the matter is taken up for
final hearing with the consent of the parties.
2. The respondent is a Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, and is a factory under the Factories Act,
1948. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is
applicable to the respondent-company.
3. The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent in
the year 1987. It is contended that his past service record till the
year 2000, was totally unblemished and blot less. He was
confirmed in employment on 12-03-1992.
4. He had met with an accident arising out of and in the course
of employment in the first shift on 23-09-1987, while working on a
nozzle machine. The respondent-Company was then known by
name Balaji Tubes. His left hand got trapped in a machine and he
suffered fractures at five to six places. He was admitted at Akshay
Hospital by the respondent, operated upon and kept as an indoor
patient for about a month. He had taken treatment for about 8 to 9
months as an outdoor patient. After recovering from his injuries, he
was given employment in the Store’s Department. He had also
preferred a claim for compensation before the Labour Court
bearing W/C No. 49/1988.
5. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour in 1992, which was settled on 09-03-1992
and an individual settlement dated 11-03-1992 was signed. The
respondent initially agreed to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation
and to provide permanent work subject to the petitioner
withdrawing the application W/C No. 49/1988. It was in this way
that the said dispute was settled. However, the petitioner was not
given payment for the period from 1987 to 1992. The petitioner has
further narrated several acts of unfair practices alleged to have
been committed by the respondent, in his complaint preferred
before the Labour Court.
6. The respondent issued a charge-sheet dated 09-12-2001 to
the petitioner alleging therein several acts amounting to misconducts
under the Model Standing Orders. Copy of the enquiry
report is tendered across the bar, which contains the text of the
charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. Same is marked as ‘X’ for
identification and is taken on record.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the said
charge-sheet a domestic enquiry was conducted and ultimately an
order of dismissal by way of punishment was issued on
28-04-2002.
8. The petitioner preferred Complaint (ULP) No. 53/2002 before
the Labour Court at Ahmednagar. Issues as regards the fairness of
the enquiry as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer were
raised. The respondent had opposed the complaint by filing its say
and written statement. Contention of the petitioner was that he has
been victimised on account of the litigation that was initiated
against the respondent. His past record was clean until the year
2000, when the respondent started harassing the petitioner by
levelling false charges against him. It was contended that the
enquiry deserves to be set aside and the order of dismissal be
quashed.
9. By order dated 06-02-2008, the Labour Court decided the
preliminary issues and concluded that the domestic enquiry was
conducted in a fair and proper manner. Revision Petition bearing
(ULP) Nos. 04/2010 and 06/2011 were preferred by the petitioner
and the respondent respectively. By a common judgment dated
29-02-2012, the Revision Petition filed by the respondent-employer
was allowed. The Revision filed by the petitioner was rendered
redundant since the order of the Labour Court was quashed and
set aside and the matter was remanded back for deciding the issue
of perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
10. The Labour Court after considering the preliminary issues a
fresh, came to a conclusion vide its order dated 10-07-2012 that
the findings of the Enquiry Officer were fair and proper and could
not be termed as perverse. Ultimately, by the judgment dated
28-08-2012, the complaint filed by the petitioner was partly allowed.
The punishment awarded to him was held to be shockingly
disproportionate. He was directed to be reinstated in employment
with continuity but without back wages.
11. The respondent herein as well as the petitioner preferred
Revision ULP Nos. 93/2012 and 99/2012 respectively before the
Industrial Court at Ahmednagar. The petitioner by his Revision
Petition prayed for full back wages and the respondent by their
Revision Petition prayed for quashing and setting aside of the
judgment of the Labour Court and the dismissal of the complaint.
12. By its judgment and order dated 25-03-2013, the Revision
Petition filed by the respondent-employer was allowed by the
Industrial Court and the Revision Petition of the petitioner was
dismissed. The judgment and order of the Labour Court dated
28-08-2012 was quashed and set aside. The complaint filed by the
petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment,
the petitioner has preferred this petition.
13. Contention of the petitioner is that the charges mentioned in
the charge-sheet have been exaggerated. Five false charges have
been levelled upon the petitioner and one charge has been
disproved. The Labour Court had correctly awarded reinstatement
and continuity of service, but had erred in not granting full back
wages. It is further contended that the Industrial Court has got
carried away by the text of the charges and the clauses of the
Model Standing Orders invoked in the charge-sheet. Because the
petitioner had become an eye-sore in view of having initiated
litigation against the respondent-Management, that the respondent
had become vindictive. The charges levelled are on account of
vindictive attitude of the respondent.
14. It is further submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of the
Industrial Court under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971,
is limited and cannot be expanded as if the Industrial Court was
exercising Appeal jurisdiction.
15. It is, therefore, submitted that even if on the one hand the
enquiry is held to be fair and proper and the findings are not held to
be perverse, on the other hand the punishment awarded to the
petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. If the judicial conscience
of the Court is shocked by the proportionality of the punishment,
the Court has every jurisdiction to mould the punishment into such
a form that justice would be done to both the parties.
16. It is, therefore, the submission of the petitioner that an
appropriate punishment could have been awarded by the Industrial
Court by moulding the dismissal order. The Industrial Court has
taken an extreme view which has resulted in causing civil death to
the petitioner.
17. It is further submitted that the petitioner is out of employment
from 28-04-2002 and is presently about fifty three (53) years old.
He has about five (5) more years left in employment, as the
retirement age in the respondent factory is fifty eight (58) years. It
is also contended that the Industrial Court ought not to have upheld
the order of dismissal could have converted the same into
discharge which would have fetched the petitioner retiral benefits.
It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and the
impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.
18. Shri V.N. Upadhye, learned Advocate for the respondent has
submitted that the past service record of the petitioner is highly
blemished. He has drawn my attention to the copy of his written
statement filed in the Labour Court. In paragraph 8 of the written
statement, seven (7) instances have been narrated to indicate that
the past service record of the petitioner is blemished.
19. It is further submitted that as a principle of law when the
domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper and when the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are not declared to be perverse, all
allegations of victimisation, be it legal or factual, stand disproved.
Since the charges are held to be proved and the conclusions of the
Enquiry Officer are not interfered with, allegations of victimisation
have to fail.
20. In his submissions, therefore, what remains within the
adjudicatory powers and jurisdiction of the Labour Court is the
proportionality of the punishment. If it shocks the judicial
conscience of the Court, the same could be interfered with. He,
however, submits that the jurisdiction to do so is extremely limited
and narrow. It is to be left to the employer and its subjective
assessment as to whether the charges proved against a workman
are of a minor nature or of a major character. Past blemished
service record would aggravate the seriousness and the gravity of
the mis-conducts proved against the workman under Standing
Order 25(6).
21. Shri Upadhye, has further submitted that the charges levelled
upon the petitioner and those which are proved are grave and
serious in nature. The Labour Court had erred in granting
reinstatement with continuity to the petitioner oblivious of the
seriousness and the gravity of the proved mis-conducts. This was
neither permissible nor could have possibly been done. The
Labour Court over stepped its jurisdiction and had shown
misplaced sympathy towards the petitioner.
22. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the dismissal be
converted into discharge in order to avail of retiral benefits, Shri
Upadye has submitted that from the date of appointment till the
date of his dismissal, the petitioner would be entitled for Gratuity.
23. Having heard the learned Advocates extensively, I have gone
through the entire petition paper book with their assistance.
24. The charges levelled upon the petitioner and which are
reproduced in the Enquiry Officer’s report have been considered.
The abusive language used by the petitioner appears to be of a
serious nature. Not only was the authority of a Senior Officer been
questioned, foul words have also been used against him and his
mother. The petitioner has been held guilty of committing misconducts,
under Standing Order 24(a) (k) (l) and (x) of the Model
Standing Orders. He has been exonerated of the charge under
Standing Order 24(h). He has been held guilty of insubordination,
disobedience, disorderly and indecent behaviour, acts subversive
of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the
Establishment and refusal to accept the charge-sheet or a lawful
communication from the employer. He has been held guilty of not
working in an entire shift, using abusive and foul language against
his superiors, indulging in arguments with superior and challenging
their authority.
25. So far as the past record of the petitioner is concerned, he
was placed under suspension for four (4) days by an order dated
15-09-2000 and he was suspended pending enquiry with regard to
mis-behaviour with a senior supervisor by order dated 25-11-2001.
26. Since the enquiry were held to be fair and proper and the
findings are not declared to be perverse, the proportionality of the
punishment was, therefore, required to be gone into. This has
been done by the Industrial Court. Based on its conclusions, the
Industrial Court has held that the mis-conducts proved against the
petitioner are grave and serious character.
27. I have gone through the reasons adduced by the Industrial
Court and have also considered the charges proved against the
petitioner. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Sahil Khan Vs. M/s. Hashmat and Company, reported at 2007 LLR,
217, upheld the dismissal order issued by the employer. The
workman had abused the employer by calling him a thief since the
employer had carried out deduction from his monthly wages on
ground of absentee. This Court, therefore, concluded that the said
behaviour on the part of the workman abusing the employer has to
be construed to be a grave and serious charge.
28. In the case of Premier Automobiles Vs. H.S.T. Hedge and
others, reported at 2007 LLR 118 and Jarnail Singh Vs. P.O.
Labour Court, Patila, reported at 2007 LLR 245, it has been
concluded that shouting slogans inside the cabin, abusing in filthy
language and creating riotous and disorderly behaviour amounts to
grave and serious acts of mis-conducts.
29. In the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd., Vs. A.
Unnikrishnan, reported at 1994 (II) LLJ 888, the Apex Court had an
occasion to deal with acts of abusive nature. It was concluded that
the said acts are serious in nature.
30. In the light of the judicial pronouncements referred above,
and after having considered the abusive language used by the
petitioner and as proved in the enquiry, I am of the view that the
said words do not fall within the definition of minor mis-conducts or
mis-conducts of a technical character.
31. The past service record of the petitioner is blemished to
some extent. Quantum of punishment which is based on the
subjective assessment of an individual workman, in such situations
does not deserve any interference. In the case of Bharat Forge
Limited Vs. Uttam Nakhate, reported at (2005) 2 SCC 489, the
Apex Court has held that interference in cases where the acts
committed by a workman being of abusive nature should be
deprecated.
32. In this back drop, the punishment of dismissal from service
needs to be held to be commensurate to the gravity and the
seriousness of the mis-conducts proved against the petitioner. The
past service record, therefore, does not operate as a mitigating
factor, rather it has the effect of an aggravating factor.
33. In the light of above, I, therefore, do not find any merit in this
petition. However, the fact that the Gratuity of the petitioner being
payable from the date of appointment till his dismissal, will have to
be paid by the respondent, if still not paid. In the event, the said
Gratuity is not paid, the respondent shall pay the same along with
interest from the date of dismissal till the date of actual payment at
the rate of 8% per annum.
34. With these directions, the petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged. No order as to costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
No comments:
Post a Comment