Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Service Matter Against Sugar Factory for Recovery of Salary and Benefits. Appellant entitled to difference of salary, leave salary, unpaid salary, annual increments, provident fund, and gratuity as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Ganesh Raghunath Mamidwar, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,73,266/- against the respondents, Devgiri Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and others, for difference of salary, leave salary, unpaid salary, annual increments, provident fund, and gratuity. He claimed he worked as Chief Accountant/Incharge Managing Director with the defendant sugar factory. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decreeing the suit. The court directed the respondents to pay the amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The court held that the appellant was entitled to the amounts as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Recovery of Salary and Benefits - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - The appellant, a former Chief Accountant/Incharge Managing Director of a sugar factory, sought recovery of Rs.3,73,266/- towards difference of salary, leave salary, unpaid salary, annual increments, provident fund, and gratuity. The court allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to pay the amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Held that the appellant is entitled to the claimed amounts as per the standing orders and industrial law. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to recovery of difference of salary, leave salary, unpaid salary, annual increments, provident fund, and gratuity from the respondent sugar factory.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside. The suit is decreed. The respondents are directed to pay Rs.3,73,266/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

Law Points

  • Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
  • 1946
  • Bombay Industrial Relations Act
  • Recovery of salary
  • Leave salary
  • Gratuity
  • Provident fund
  • Annual increments
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 6

First Appeal No.873 of 2010

2010-09-28

S.V. Gangapurwala

Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar for appellant, Mr. M.M. Joshi for respondent No.2

Ganesh Raghunath Mamidwar

Devgiri Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for recovery of money

Remedy Sought

Recovery of Rs.3,73,266/- towards difference of salary, leave salary, unpaid salary, annual increments, provident fund, and gratuity

Filing Reason

Non-payment of salary and other benefits by the employer sugar factory

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed the suit

Issues

Whether the appellant is entitled to recovery of difference of salary, leave salary, unpaid salary, annual increments, provident fund, and gratuity from the respondents.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that he worked as Chief Accountant/Incharge Managing Director and is entitled to the claimed amounts. Respondents opposed the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant is entitled to recovery of salary and benefits as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

Judgment Excerpts

The present appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,73,266/- ... towards difference of salary, leave salary, unpaid salary, annual increments, Provident fund, gratuity etc.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a suit for recovery which was dismissed by the trial court. The appellant then filed the present first appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal and heard it finally with consent of parties.

Acts & Sections

  • Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946:
  • Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Plaintiff Failed to Prove Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contract. Time Was Not the Essence of Contract, but Plaintiff's Conduct Showed Lack of Readiness and Willingness, Hence De...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Amalgamation Notification for Lack of Consent — Amalgamation Under Section 44 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act Requires Consent of Both Market Committees. Withdrawal of Consent by One Committee Renders the...