The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Officeial Assignee Cooperative Oil Industries Ltd vs Dnyanchandra R Shinde Through Lrs Satyabhama Dnyanchandra Shinde

2026:BHC-AUG:21506
Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6408 OF 2018
The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies/
Official Assignee, Co-operative Oil Industries
Ltd. (De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Dnyanchandra R. Shinde, Died through L.R.

Satyabhama w/o Dnyanchandra Shinde ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6409 OF 2018
The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies/
Official Assignee, Co-operative Oil Industries

Ltd. (De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Chandrakant Shankarrao Pawar ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6415 OF 2018
The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies/
Official Assignee, Co-operative Oil Industries
Ltd. (De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 2 ::
VERSUS

Govind s/o Marotirao Chatre ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6474 OF 2018
The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies/
Official Assignee, Co-operative Oil Industries
Ltd. (De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Hiralal s/o Bhausaheb Mandwkar ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2961 OF 2018
The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies/ Liquidator and Official Assignee,
Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd.

(De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Narsing s/o Kushanrao Jadhav ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2962 OF 2018
The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies/ Liquidator and Official Assignee,

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 3 ::
Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd.

(De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Chandrappa s/o Keshappa Mudale,
Died through L.Rs.
Parvatamma w/o Chandrappa Mudale & ors. ….Respondents
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2968 OF 2018
The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies/ Liquidator and Official Assignee,
Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd.

(De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Sirajoddin Mehtabsab Shaikh, Died through L.R.

Smt. Shahajadbee wd/o Sirajoddin Shaikh ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2963 OF 2018
The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies/ Liquidator and Official Assignee,
Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd.
(De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Vitthal s/o Namdeo Kanse ….Respondent
.......

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 4 ::
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2965 OF 2018
The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies/ Liquidator and Official Assignee,
Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd.

(De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS

Subhash s/o Ratanlal Shah ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2967 OF 2018
The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies/ Liquidator and Official Assignee,
Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd.
(De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Shivaji s/o Bajirao Deshmukh ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2966 OF 2018
The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies/ Liquidator and Official Assignee,
Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd.

(De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 5 ::
VERSUS
Achyut Digambarrao Kulkarni, Died through L.Rs.

Sumanbai w/o Achyutrao Kulkarni & ors. ….Respondents
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents
....…
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2964 OF 2018
The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies/ Liquidator and Official Assignee,
Co-operative Oil Industries Ltd.
(De-Registered), Latur …. Petitioner
VERSUS
Shivaji s/o Narsingrao Maknikar ….Respondent
.......
Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. G.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent
....…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 24th APRIL, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authority under

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 6 ::
the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the orders passed by the
Industrial Court, Latur, the Appellate Authority under the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972.
3. Mr. Shahane learned counsel for the petitioner
strenuously submitted that the applications filed by the respondents
in all the petitions before the Controlling Authority are hopelessly
time barred. He submits that, the respondents retired from service
and after getting the entire benefits including the amount of
gratuity, they filed the application before the authority, contending
that they have not received full amount of gratuity and there was
deficit amount and, therefore, the applications were filed. He
submits that, though the notices were served before the Controlling
Authority and the petitioner appeared by engaging Advocate, but no
reply was filed and, therefore, before the Controlling Authority, the
matters got uncontested and the authority decided the matter
against the petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, appeals were filed before
the Controlling Authority and the specific issue of limitation was
raised by the petitioner. Further, it was specifically prayed that the
matter needs to be remanded back to the appellate authority as

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 7 ::
admittedly the application filed by the respondent was uncontested,
the petitioner should get opportunity to get all the details such as
vouchers towards gratuity. He further submits that, it is not the case
that the petitioner has not paid the amount of gratuity at all, but
less amount of gratuity was paid and, therefore, the matters need to
be remanded back to the Controlling Authority. He further points
out that, the petitioner has paid the entire amount and to that effect
the record is placed before this Court and, therefore, on the ground
of merits also the respondents- employees are not entitled to receive
any amount from the petitioner and the petitioner Society has gone
under liquidation and suffered losses. All these employees whose
services were retrenched and at the time of retrenchment the entire
benefits including the amount of gratuity had already been paid
and, therefore, the employees who have already received the
payment, are not entitled to receive the amount.
5. The main contention raised by the petitioner regarding
not giving opportunity as well as the applications are not within
limitation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the law laid down by this Court in the matter
of State Bank of India, Goa Vs. Laxmikant Vithal Palekar & ors.

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 8 ::
(2010 III CLR 972) and the order passed by the Karnataka High
Court in the matter of Shivlingappa Vs. Management of Minerva
Mills, Bangalore & ors. (2001 LAB. I.C.1138) and submits that, the
petitions need to be allowed by remanding the matter back to the
authority. He further invited my attention to the order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.11700//2014, wherein this Court has
specifically directed that, the issue of limitation and alleged delay of
31 years caused will be looked into by the Industrial Court. Despite
that, the Industrial Court has not considered the material aspect of
the matter. He therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
6. Per contra, Mr. G.S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
respondents supports the orders passed by the Controlling Authority
and the appellate authority. He contended that, in fact the amount
of gratuity was not paid and, therefore, the application was filed.
He took me through the order passed by the Controlling Authority
by pointing out that despite of service of notice and appointment of
counsel, the petitioner and in spite of that, the petitioner has taken
a chance and not appeared before the authority. Before the
appellate authority also no any record was placed, much less before
this Court. This fortifies the contention of the respondent that the

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 9 ::
amount was not paid. He further submits that, the employees are
more than 70 years of age and some of the employees are in the age
group of 70 – 80 years and they are fighting for their cause after
their retrenchment. Their services were retrenched and as far as
payment of gratuity is concerned, it is their right, but the same was
not paid at the time of their retrenchment and, therefore, the
application was filed after a period of 30 years, but non payment of
gratuity amount is a continuous cause of action and, therefore, the
Controlling Authority and the appellate authority have rightly
considered the matter. He, therefore, prayed to reject the petitions.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and
the appellate authority, one thing needs to be taken into
consideration that, as far as the amount of gratuity is concerned, it
is the right of the employee to get the gratuity. Therefore, as far as
non-receipt of the amount of gratuity is concerned, it is a
continuous cause of action and, therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that the applications which were filed by the respondents
before the Controlling Authority are hopelessly time barred, cannot
be accepted. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 10 ::
amount of gratuity was paid, I have gone through the record which
is submitted along with the petition. Though the account extract is
filed along with the petition, but it is not certain whether the
amount is paid to them. Even the record does not clearly reveal
that the amount of gratuity was paid to the employees.
8. Therefore, only because the matter was uncontested
before the Controlling Authority and the appellate authority when
the specific ground was raised and sought remand, that cannot be a
ground to remand the matter more particularly when all these
employees who are retrenched and they are fighting for their right
to get the amount of gratuity. As far as payment of gratuity is
concerned, it is a welfare legislation. Therefore, pursuant to the
order passed by this Court, the appellate authority held that the
amount of gratuity ought to have been paid by the petitioner when
the respondents were retrenched and more particularly the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount
was paid, is not fortified by any document and this ground is raised
only for the sake of raising the ground. Therefore, the said
contention needs to be rejected. Therefore, considering the above, I
find that there is no purpose for remanding the matters back to the

Writ Petition No.6408/2018
:: 11 ::
Controlling Authority. Hence, I am not inclined to allow these
petitions. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
9. The respondents- employees are permitted to withdraw
the amount which is deposited by the petitioner in the respective
petitions.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

fmp/-