Payment Of Gratuity Act Applies To Zilla Parishad Employees: Bombay HC
Bombay Excessive Courtroom (Nagpur Bench): A single choose bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar held that the Fee of Gratuity Act, 1972, applies to Zilla parishad workers. Nevertheless, the court docket defined that Part 4(6) of the Act permits the withholding or forfeiture of gratuity if an worker faces legal proceedings that contain ethical turpitude.
Background
Pradeep Pokale retired from the Amaravati Zilla Parishad in 2020. At the moment, he was beneath suspension due to a pending legal trial beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act, and was additionally going through a number of departmental enquiries. Regardless of this, in 2022, he filed an software earlier than the Controlling Authority beneath the Fee of Gratuity Act, for Rs. 20 lakhs as gratuity.
In 2023, the Controlling Authority allowed his software, and ordered the Zilla Parishad to pay Rs. 20 lakhs together with 10% curiosity. Aggrieved, the Zilla Parishad filed a writ petition difficult this order. They argued that as per the State Authorities’s decision dated 01 March 2019, gratuity for Zilla Parishad workers was capped at ₹14,00,000.
Arguments
The Zilla Parishad argued that the Fee of Gratuity Act doesn’t apply to its workers. They argued that Pokale’s service circumstances had been ruled by the 1982 Pension Guidelines, and beneath Rule 130, gratuity may be withheld if there’s a pending departmental enquiry or a legal continuing. They defined that since there’s a pending legal trial beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act, withholding the fee is justified. Counting on Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi CoalFields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey (Civil Attraction No. 9693 of 2013), they argued that gratuity may be withheld throughout pending proceedings even after superannuation.
Pradeep Pokale argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as there’s a statutory attraction beneath Part 7(7) of the Fee of Gratuity Act with a strict limitation interval. He argued that the Zilla Parishad had skipped that attraction and tried to bypass the statutory scheme by submitting a writ petition. He additional argued that the Fee of Gratuity Act is a useful laws and applies to all Zilla Parishad workers, as no particular exemption is granted in opposition to them. Citing Purushottam Kashinath Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 2630 of 2014), he argued that an employer can not keep away from paying gratuity if there isn’t a particular exemption beneath the Act.
Courtroom’s Reasoning
The court docket famous that Part 4(5) of the Act permits an worker to get higher phrases beneath different gratuity schemes. Nevertheless, the court docket held that it doesn’t take away the entitlement beneath the Act, until a particular exemption is granted by the State govt beneath Part 5. Noting that the Zilla Parishad had not obtained any such exemption, the court docket dominated that the Fee of Gratuity Act, 1972 utilized to Zilla Parishad workers.
Additional, the court docket referred to Part 4(6) of the Act. The court docket famous that it permits an employer to forfeit gratuity if the worker’s companies had been terminated for acts that contain ethical turpitude, riotous habits or trigger any loss to the employer. Since Pokale was going through a pending legal trial beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court docket dominated that these questions needed to be invoked and adjudicated.
Discovering that the controlling authority had failed to contemplate this difficulty as per Part 4(6) of the Gratuity Act, the court docket remanded the matter again for reconsideration. Thus, the court docket partly allowed the writ petition. The court docket held that although the Fee of Gratuity Act applies to all Zilla Parishad workers, the query of forfeiture beneath Part 4(6) needed to be determined.
Selected: 09-06-2025
Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5300
Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri Milind Rathi
Counsel for the Respondent: Shri S.T. Harkare
