M/S. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.versusMR. BHASKAR MURLIDHAR KADAM

Vaishnavi                                              50-WP-14054-2022


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 14054 OF 2022

M/S. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited                    ...Petitioner

                     V/s.

Mr. Bhaskar Murlidhar Kadam                          ...Respondent
                                ________________
Mr. T.R. Yadav i/b Ms. Desai and Desai Associates, for Petitioner.
Mr. Ravindra Vishnu-Laxmi Sankpal i/b Mr. R.V. Sankpal and Associates,
for Respondent.
                                ________________


                                           CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                           DATED: 27 July 2026


P.C.:


1)          The Petition challenges order dated 4 April 2019 passed by the
Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity
Act) by which the Appellate Authority, while partly allowing the appeal
preferred by the Petitioner, has reduced the amount of gratuity payable
to the Respondent to Rs. 2,96,116/-. Otherwise the Controlling Authority,
by his order dated 28 February 2014, had adjudicated the amount payable
to the Respondent towards gratuity at Rs. 3,50,000/-.




                                   Page No.1 of 3
                                    27 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                                        50-WP-14054-2022


2)          I have heard Mr. Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner, Mr. Sankpal, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.


3)          The Respondent is dismissed from service by order dated 21 June
2008 after being found guilty of misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet
dated 11 May 2007. In the charge-sheet, following misconduct was
alleged against the Respondent:
              2.      As per the record available with the Personnel Department, you
              were mamico To Smt. Mandakini Bhaskar Kadam. Declaration given by you
              to this effects conCrmatory to this fact.
              3.      It has now been reported that you have shown Smt. Vimal Bhaskar
              Kadam as Smt. Mandakini Bhaskar Kadam, in you personal records.
              Further, you have Included the names of Miss Sandhya, Miss Seema and
              Miss Surekha who are born from Smt. Vimal B Kadam as daughters born
              from Smt. Mandakini B Kadam in your personal records.
              4.      You are fraudulently and illegally availing Company's facilities such
              as Medical treatments, Leave Travel Concession etc. for the above
              indivisuals by falsifying the record with ulterior motives and malaCde
              intensions and thereby cheated the company by misusing the facilities
              being extended to the bonaCde family members of regular employees in
              violation of Company rules.
              5.      You had availed 7 days Special Casual Leave from 9.1.1985 to
              15.1.1985 when your bonaCde wife undergone Tubectomy Operation
              during the year 1985. Further, you also availed 7 days Special Casual Leave
              from 1.9.1990 to 7.9.1990 for the second time when Smt. Vimal B. Kadam,
              posing as Smt. Mandakini B. Kadam, has undergone the Tubectomy
              Operation from the HAL Hospital much against the company rules.

4)          It appears that Respondent’s challenge to the punishment order
is pending before Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai
(CGIT). I am not proposing to go into correctness of the dismissal order
and I proceed on a footing that the Respondent has committed the
misconduct leading to his dismissal order. For the purpose of
dertermining his entitlement for gratuity, when Respondent raised a
claim for gratuity, the same was denied by the Petitioner by passing an

                                         Page No.2 of 3
                                          27 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                                 50-WP-14054-2022


order of         forfeiture dated 16 September 2010, contending that
Respondent had committed the acts of fraud and falsiCcation of
documents.


5)          It is seen that the Respondent was earlier married to Smt.
Mandakini Bhaskar Kadam and after dissolution of marriage by divorce,
he married Smt. Vimal Bhaskar Kadam. The marriage between
Respondent and Smt. Vimal Bhaskar Kadam is not invalid in any manner.
The allegation against the Respondent was that he continued reFecting
Smt. Vimal Bhaskar Kadam as Smt. Mandakini Bhaskar Kadam in his
personal records and also claimed that the three daughters, which were
actually bron from wedlock between him and Smt Vimal Bhaskar Kadam,
as daughters of Smt. Mandakini Bhaskar Kadam. This may amount to a
misconduct and I do not propose to go into the correctness of Cndings
recorded by the disciplinary authority. However, it cannot be contended
that the acts alleged against the Respondent would constitute moral
turpitude within the meaning of Section 4 (6)(b)(ii) of the Gratuity Act.
In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the impugned
orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority.


6)          The Writ Petition is dismissed. It is, however, clariCed that the
CGIT shall proceed to decide challenge to the dismissal order
uninFuenced by any observations made in the order.




                                                     [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]



                                    Page No.3 of 3
                                     27 July 2026