37. WP 4339 of 2023.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4339/2023 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller, Amravati Division, Amravati ...Versus… Prakash Dagduji Bidkar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. P.S. Gawai, Advocate for petitioner Mr. C.V. Jagdale, Advocate for respondent CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 25/06/2026 1. The present petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 02/09/2022, passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Amravati and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in P.G.A. Case No.26/2020 and the judgment and order dated 20/03/2023, passed by the Judge, Industrial Court, Amravati acting as Appellate Authority under the said Act in P.G.A.-Appeal No.17/2022. 2. The respondent/employee was in employment of the petitioner/Corporation and has superannuated from service on 30/09/2012. It is not in dispute that the employees of the petitioner/Corporation are entitled to receive gratuity. Amount of Rs.4,24,194/- was paid by the petitioner/Corporation to the respondent/employee upon his superannuation. The respondent filed P.G.A. Case No.26/2020, contending that the amount of gratuity paid was not proper 2026:BHC-NAG:8120 37. WP 4339 of 2023.odt 2 and made a prayer for payment of difference in the amount of gratuity. The said application is allowed by the learned Controlling Authority vide judgment and order dated 02/09/2022, thereby directing the petitioner/employer to pay amount of Rs.1,13,118/- towards the difference in the amount of gratuity along with interest @ 10/% per annum. The appeal preferred by the petitioner/Corporation being P.G.A.-Appeal No.17/2022 is also dismissed on 20/03/2023. The present petition is filed challenging the aforesaid judgments and orders. 3. Whereas Mr. Gawai, learned Advocate for the petitioner does not dispute the computation of gratuity, as done by the learned Controlling Authority and confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, his contention is that since the respondent/employee had approached the Competent Authority after a period of eight years, the learned Controlling Authority ought not to have granted interest on the amount of gratuity. 4. Mr. Jagdale, learned Advocate for the respondent/employee draws attention to Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to contend that in case of failure to pay the appropriate amount of gratuity, interest at the rate prescribed by the Central Government is a statutory mandate. He further contends that the provision employs the word “shall”, which indicates that it is mandatory. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director (M.D.), Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal 37. WP 4339 of 2023.odt 3 Development Corporation Ltd. Nashik and others Vs. Purushottam s/o Asaram Raut and others, reported in 2015 (4) Mh.L.J. 342 to contend that the Payment of Gratuity Act does not prescribe any period of limitation. 5. Mr. Gawai, learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Union Bank Of India and another Vs. Sh D.C. Chaturvedi and another, reported in 2022 Supreme (Del) 167 to contend that in case the employee does not approach the Controlling Authority within a reasonable period, it is not proper to award interest. 6. Perusal of the decision by the Delhi High Court indicates that although interest was denied to the employee in the said particular case, the judgment does not lay down any ratio of legal principle for doing the same. It is merely observed that in the facts of that case, it was not proper to award interest to the employee. 7. Having regard to the mandate of Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and also having regard to the fact that both the Courts have deemed it proper to award interest to the respondent/employee, this Court is not inclined to show any interference on the ground that the employee had not approached the Controlling Authority within a reasonable period, particularly having regard to the fact that duty to pay gratuity to the employee is statutory obligation of the employer and also having regard to the law laid down by this 37. WP 4339 of 2023.odt 4 Court in the case of Managing Director (M.D.), Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd. Nashik (Supra) holding that no period of limitation is prescribed for approaching the Controlling Authority. 8. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Wadkar