SINDHUDURG SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR.versusSHRIPAD SITARAM VELING

                                                     902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1373 OF 2026

Sindhudurg Shikshan Prasarak Mandal And Anr.                 ...Petitioners
      VERSUS
Shripad Sitaram Veling                                       ...Respondent

                                 …..
Adv. Makrand M. Kale (through V.C.), for Petitioners.
Adv. Rahul S. Rane a/w Adv. Rajvardhan S. Rane, for Respondent.
                                 …..


                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         The Counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection

that alternate remedy of preferring appeal is available under Section

7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Act” for the sake of convenience and brevity) and bypassing the

same, the petition has been filed assailing judgment and order dated

21.08.2025. It is further submitted that the petition cannot be

entertained for condonation of delay and relegating the matter to the

appellate authority. The respondent is stated to be guilty of laches and

no adequate record was produced before the authority to disclose



     ZIP                                                              1 of 5
                                                      902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc


nature of termination.

3.         Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates the submission,

adverting my attention to para Nos. 6 and 11 of the memo. It is

additionally submitted that the respondent was terminated because of

his misconduct and negligence after conducting full-fledged inquiry and

apparently is not entitled to any gratuity in view of Section 4(6) of the

Act. It is stated that due to the administrative difficulties, appeal could

not be preferred and there is delay of hardly three months and few

days. It is vehemently submitted that the management has ample

evidence to show that the termination was in accordance with law and

the opportunity needs to be given to the management. Learned counsel

for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that his client is ready to pay

the cost.

4.         It transpires from record that written statement was filed by the

petitioners before the controlling authority. However, no evidence was

produced to show the nature of termination and the gravity of

misconduct. The respondent was working from 18.08.1999 and

terminated on 02.03.2020, after conducting full-fledged inquiry for the

allegations of negligence and misconduct. There is no reason to discard

that petitioner management has the material to show the nature of the

disciplinary action taken against the respondent, albeit it was not placed

before the controlling authority.




     ZIP                                                               2 of 5
                                                    902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc


5.         The counsel for the respondent has made apparently attractive

submission that there is alternate remedy provided under Section 7(7)

of the Act. Under given facts and circumstances, when the petitioner is

seeking indulgence of this Court to condone laches and relegating the

party to the alternate authority, I find that the objection raised by the

respondent is liable to be rejected. The delay which is sought to be

condoned is not inordinate. I do not find any malafides on the part of

the petitioner in causing the delay. The petitioner is ready to avail the

remedy of appeal and ready to abide by the mandatory conditions of

depositing the entire amount.

6.         It would be appropriate to relegate the parties for objective

scrutiny of the matter. Prima facie, the petitioner has raised triable

defense. If the termination of the services is out of the misconduct,

willful omission and negligence causing loss or the damage to the

management, the employer is absolved from paying the gratuity. In the

teeth of disciplinary action, it would be appropriate to have the

objective scrutiny as to the entitlement of the respondent to receive the

amount of gratuity.

7.         It has been recorded by the controlling authority that the

evidence was not produced by the petitioners. There was appointment

of a new principal. I find that the petitioner is likely to make out a case

for remand before the appellate authority.




     ZIP                                                             3 of 5
                                                      902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc


8.          My attention is adverted by learned counsel appearing for the

respondent to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 10.08.2026

in the matter of Mahanagar Media Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Stanny

Pereira passed in Writ Petition No.4574 of 2025 . I have gone through

paragraph Nos.12 to 14 of the judgment. In that case, the dispute was

pertaining to the quantum of gratuity. There was no serious dispute

regarding entitlement of the employee to the amount of gratuity. In

those circumstances, the Court did not find it fit to grant any relief to

the petitioner employer. However, in the case at hand, the facts are

distinguishable. The petitioner has triable defense to get absolved from

the liability of payment of gratuity. The judgment would not assist the

Court.

9.          Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the

matter of Prabhat Kumar Singh Versus ACCU Pack Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

[arising out of SLP (c) No.16945 of 2025] I have gone through

paragraph No.13. It would be matter of the Appellate Court or the trial

authority in case of remand to consider as to whether the respondent is

entitled to gratuity or not. If the petitioner succeeds, then it can get

absolved from the liability of payment of gratuity. At this stage of the

proceedings, this judgment would not help the respondent.

10.         For maintaining appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act, the

statutory condition is to deposit amount equal to the amount of gratuity




      ZIP                                                              4 of 5
                                                       902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc


would be deposited. It would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to

deposit the amount of Rs. 13,64,053/-. The petitioners shall pay cost of

Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent for the lapses on its part. I, therefore,

pass following order:


                                   ::ORDER::


A.         The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal to entertain appeal of the petitioner

challenging judgment and order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Labour

Court, Ratnagiri, if preferred within a period of four weeks from today.

B.         The Industrial Court shall decide the appeal on its own merits by

extending opportunity of hearing to the parties, and the delay in

preferring the appeal shall be treated to be condoned.

C.         The petitioners shall deposit entire amount of gratuity before the

controlling authority within a period of three weeks from today, and

produce the certificate to that effect before the appellate authority,

which shall be the condition precedent.

D.         The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent

before filing of appeal.

                                                [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




     ZIP                                                                5 of 5