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