High Court
Facts
WP 11287/25 & Ors.1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD927 WRIT PETITION NO. 11287 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSHOBHA CHANDRAKANT PISE...928 WRIT PETITION NO. 11288 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSKHALEDABI MARD A LATIF...929 WRIT PETITION NO. 11289 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSNAFISABANO A MAJID...930 WRIT PETITION NO. 11290 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSULTANABI A JABBAR...931 WRIT PETITION NO. 11291 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSKAMAL MAROTI KHADGE...932 WRIT PETITION NO. 11292 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSHAMIN AKHTAR BADRUDDIN...933 WRIT PETITION NO. 11293 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONVERSUSMADHURI NIVRUTTI NEMADE...934 WRIT PETITION NO. 11294 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSKALA SANTOSH CHAUDHARI... WP 11287/25 & Ors.2935 WRIT PETITION NO. 11295 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSTULSA BABURAO CHAUDHARI...936 WRIT PETITION NO. 11296 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSMALTI MADHUKAR PATIL...937 WRIT PETITION NO. 11297 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSRATNA ASHOK SHIRKE...938 WRIT PETITION NO. 11298 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSMANDA BHASKAR VARADE...939 WRIT PETITION NO. 11299 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSPORNIMA ANANDA VADKAR...940 WRIT PETITION NO. 11300 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSDIPA KISAN SHINDE...941 WRIT PETITION NO. 11301 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSMATHURA KALURAM DHAYDE...942 WRIT PETITION NO. 11302 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSKALPANA LOTAN MALI...943 WRIT PETITION NO. 11303 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULE WP 11287/25 & Ors.3VERSUSMEHRUBHISA ABDUL HAI...944 WRIT PETITION NO. 11304 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSALIMA BI VAHIDKHAN...945 WRIT PETITION NO. 11307 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSMANGALA ANNASAHEB KAMOD...946 WRIT PETITION NO. 11308 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSHOBHANA PRAMOD WANKHEDE...947 WRIT PETITION NO. 11309 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSHAMIM BANO MAHAMMAD SHABANA...948 WRIT PETITION NO. 11310 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSLILA SAMBHAJI CHAUDHARI...949 WRIT PETITION NO. 11311 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSMEERA RAOSAEHB DESHMUKH...950 WRIT PETITION NO. 11314 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSMEENA ASHOK JADHAV...951 WRIT PETITION NO. 11315 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSNEELA SAHEBRAO DEORE...
Legal Reasoning
WP 11287/25 & Ors.11Payment of Gratuity Act itself provides that it is the duty of the employerto pay gratuity at the time of retirement. In this regard reliance can beplaced on relevant portion of para 6 of the judgment of this Court in thecase of Managing Director (M.D.) Maharashtra State Cooperative TribalDevelopment Corporation Ltd., Nashik and ors. Vs. Purushottam s/o.Asaram Raut and Ors. reported in 2015(4) Mh.L.J. 342, which is asunder :-“6. …………...It is in the nature of a social welfarelegislation enacted to provide for a scheme for payment ofgratuity to employees. The denial of amount of gratuity isrestricted by provisions of section 4(6) of the said Act andin case of any exemption granted by the appropriateGovernment under section 5 of the said Act. It is furtherwell settled that under provisions of section 7(2) of the saidAct, an obligation has been cast on the employer todetermine the amount of gratuity that is payableirrespective of whether any application in terms of section7(1) of the said Act has been made by the person eligibleor not.”9.As such, the impugned orders cannot be set aside. The writ petitionsare devoid of merits. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )ssc/This order is corrected vide order dated 23.9.2025
Arguments
WP 11287/25 & Ors.4952 WRIT PETITION NO. 11316 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSMATHURABAI SAVTA MALI...953 WRIT PETITION NO. 11317 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSINDUMATI RUPCHAND SONAWANE...954 WRIT PETITION NO. 11318 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSHAKILABI SHAMSUDYAH...955 WRIT PETITION NO. 11330 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSAABEDABI ABDUL HAI...956 WRIT PETITION NO. 11331 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSFATEMA BANO ABDUL HAI...957 WRIT PETITION NO. 11332 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSHUBHANGI SHAMKANT GORWADKAR...958 WRIT PETITION NO. 11333 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSNAUSHAD BEGAM KAMRUDDIN...959 WRIT PETITION NO. 11334 OF 2025THE COMMISSIONER DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULEVERSUSSINDHU CHANDRAKANT TAKLE...Advocate for the Petitioner in all petitions : Mr. Desale Nilesh N.Advocate for Respondent in all petition : Mr. Shrikant Patil... WP 11287/25 & Ors.5CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.Dated:September 18, 2025PER COURT :-1.Heard.2.By these petitions, petitioners challenge impugned judgments andorders passed by the Labour Court granting gratuity to the respondents.The respondents were appointed as ‘Balwadi Teacher/ Helper’ and theywere working in petitioner-corporation. After their retirement, they filedapplication claiming gratuity amount from the petitioner-corporation underPayment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Aggrieved by the refusal of petitioner-corporation, respondents filed applications under the Payment of GratuityAct, 1972 in the Labour Court. The Ld. Labour court granted gratuityamount to the respondents. Thereafter, for recovery of gratuity amount,respondents filed another application. Recovery certificate was accordinglyissued by learned Labour court. It appears that recovery certificate isissued by the Labour Court for recovery of the amount due and payable tothe employees with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. and thereafter interestat the rate of 15% p.a. was made applicable till its realisation was directedto be paid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by impugned orders,petitioner-corporation has filed present writ petitions.3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits thatrespondents/employees were not working on the sanctioned permanentvacant posts, so also only honorarium was paid and they were not paidwages.4.The learned counsel further submits that there was no application WP 11287/25 & Ors.6made by the concerned employees for payment of gratuity.5. The issue raised in these writ petitions is no more res-integra and inthe similarly placed employees in the the case of Anganwadiworkers/helpers the Honble Supreme Court in the case of ManibenMaganbhai Bhariya Vs. District Development Officer, Dahod and Ors,reported in (2022) 16 SCC 343 in paras 47, 49, 50, 52, 55, and 91 hasobserved as under:-“47. When we talk about the mandate of the 1972 Act, ifone looks into the scheme in a holistic manner, gratuity is areward for good, efficient and faithful service rendered for aconsiderable period and the employee who remains incontinuous service for 5 years or more includingsuperannuation/retirement/resignation/untimely deathbecomes qualified to claim gratuity in terms of thecomputation as has been provided under sub-section (2) ofSection 4 of the 1972 Act which covers in its fold, the largesector of organised/unorganised workers/employees whoare employed in various class of establishments coveredunder Sections 1(3)(a) and (b) and also notified by theCentral Government under Section 1(3)(c) of the 1972 Act.Such of the employees working under the establishmentsreferred to under Sections 1(3)(a), (b) and (c), as the casemay be, shall be eligible to claim payment of gratuity interms of Section 4 of the 1972 Act and so far as the term“wages” defined under Section 2(s) of the 1972 Act isconcerned, it appears to be only for the purpose ofcomputation as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 4of the Act and withholding of gratuity is not permissibleunder any circumstances other than those enumeratedunder sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the 1972 Act. The“employee” defined under Section 2(e) has a right to claimgratuity as a statutory right while working in theestablishment covered under Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act. 49. The 1972 Act on the genre of statutes like theMinimum Wages Act, the Employees State Insurance Act,etc. is a welfare measure to secure social and economicjustice to employees to assist them in old age and toensure them a decent standard of life on retirement. WP 11287/25 & Ors.750. Derived from a Latin word “gratuitas”, the termgratuity means a “gift”. In the industrial sector, gratuity isconsidered as a gift from the employers to their employees.Gratuity is a lump sum payment paid by an employer to theemployee for his/her past dedicated services. It is a gestureto appreciate the efforts of a person towards thebetterment, development and prosperity of anestablishment and that is the reason for which gratuity isconsidered to be a social security, and with passage oftime, it has become a statutory obligation on the part ofemployers.52. The 1972 Act is a social security legislation to wage-earning population in industries, factories andestablishments, etc. Therefore, considering the inflation andwage increase even in case of employees engaged inprivate sector, the Government decided that the entitlementof gratuity should be revised in respect of employees whoare covered under the 1972 Act and accordingly, theGovernment initiated the process for amendment to the1972 Act to increase the maximum limit of gratuity to suchamount as may be notified by the Central Government fromtime to time.55. When social security legislations are beinginterpreted, it always has to be interpreted liberally with abeneficial interpretation and has to be given the widestpossible meaning which the language permits, known asbeneficial interpretation. When a statute is meant for thebenefit of a particular class and if a word in the statute iscapable of two meanings i.e. one which would preserve thebenefits and one which would not, then the former is to beadopted.91.The learned counsel for the State has given muchstress on the honorarium paid to the Anganwadiworkers/helpers. Suffice it to say that the honorarium isbasically the quantum of money offered/conferred tosomebody who is especially a professional or a wellhonoured person for providing services. It is a voluntaryprocess. However, what is being paid to Anganwadiworkers/helpers with a nomenclature used by therespondents in projecting the term ‘honorarium’, is in factthe ‘wages’ that has been paid for the services rendered at WP 11287/25 & Ors.8the end of the month. It is the form of emoluments which isbeing earned on discharge of duty in accordance with theterms of employment defined under Section 2(s) of the Act1972.”6.In the case of Maniben cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasclearly held that the Payment of Gratuity Act is a statue like the MinimumWages Act, the Employees State Insurance Act etc. and is a welfaremeasure to secure social and economic justice to employees to assist themin old age and to ensure them a decent stand of life on retirement. In thecase of Maniben cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further heldthat honorarium is paid to someone who is professional or a well honouredperson for providing services. It is a voluntary process. However, what isbeing paid to Anganwadi workers/helpers with a nomenclature used by therespondents in projecting the term ‘honorarium’, is in fact the ‘wages’ thathas been paid for the services rendered at the end of the month. It is theform of emoluments which is being earned on discharge of duty inaccordance with the terms of employment defined under Section 2(s) ofthe Act 1972. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 25 in the case of JaggoVs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 2025 SC 296 has held asunder :-“25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporaryemployees, particularly in government institutions, oftenface multifaceted forms of exploitation. While thefoundational purpose of temporary contracts may havebeen to address short-term or seasonal needs, they haveincreasingly become a mechanism to evade long-termobligations owed to employees. These practices manifest inseveral ways : • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engagedfor work that is essential, recurring, and integral to thefunctioning of an institution are often labeled as WP 11287/25 & Ors.9"temporary" or "contractual," even when their rolesmirror those of regular employees. Suchmisclassification deprives workers of the dignity,security, and benefits that regular employees areentitled to, despite performing identical tasks.• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees arefrequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seenin the present case. This practice undermines theprinciples of natural justice and subjects workers to astate of constant insecurity, regardless of the qualityor duration of their service.• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employeesoften find themselves excluded from opportunities forskill development, promotions, or incremental payraises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating asystemic disparity between them and their regularcounterparts, despite their contributions being equallysignificant.• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutionsincreasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed bytemporary employees, effectively replacing one set ofexploited workers with another. This practice not onlyperpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates adeliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offerregular employment.• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporaryemployees are often denied fundamental benefits suchas pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paidleave, even when their tenure spans decades. Thislack of social security subjects them and their familiesto undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo cited supra has held thatit is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly ingovernment institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation.While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to WP 11287/25 & Ors.10address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become amechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo cited supra has further heldthat temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such aspension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when theirtenure spans decades. Considering the above observations made by theHon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Maniben and Jaggo cited supra it isseen that employees concerned have worked with the Dhule MunicipalCorporation for a period of 18 years to 38 years and they have retired onattaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, there is no force in theargument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondentswere not working on the sanctioned or permanent vacant post, so also onlyhonorarium was paid and they were not paid wages and therefore notentitled for gratuity.7.As regards second submission of the petitioner that there was noapplication made by the concerned employees for payment of gratuity isconcerned, section 7(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act needs to be seen,which is as under :-“7. Determination of the amount of gratuity :-(1) ………….(2)As soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employershall, whether an application referred to in sub-section (1)has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuityand give notice in writing to the person to whom thegratuity is payable and also to the controlling authorityspecifying the amount of gratuity so determined.”8.From perusal of above section, it appears that section 7(2) of the