902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1373 OF 2026 Sindhudurg Shikshan Prasarak Mandal And Anr. ...Petitioners VERSUS Shripad Sitaram Veling ...Respondent ….. Adv. Makrand M. Kale (through V.C.), for Petitioners. Adv. Rahul S. Rane a/w Adv. Rajvardhan S. Rane, for Respondent. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : Heard. 2. The Counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection that alternate remedy of preferring appeal is available under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of convenience and brevity) and bypassing the same, the petition has been filed assailing judgment and order dated 21.08.2025. It is further submitted that the petition cannot be entertained for condonation of delay and relegating the matter to the appellate authority. The respondent is stated to be guilty of laches and no adequate record was produced before the authority to disclose ZIP 1 of 5 902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc nature of termination. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates the submission, adverting my attention to para Nos. 6 and 11 of the memo. It is additionally submitted that the respondent was terminated because of his misconduct and negligence after conducting full-fledged inquiry and apparently is not entitled to any gratuity in view of Section 4(6) of the Act. It is stated that due to the administrative difficulties, appeal could not be preferred and there is delay of hardly three months and few days. It is vehemently submitted that the management has ample evidence to show that the termination was in accordance with law and the opportunity needs to be given to the management. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that his client is ready to pay the cost. 4. It transpires from record that written statement was filed by the petitioners before the controlling authority. However, no evidence was produced to show the nature of termination and the gravity of misconduct. The respondent was working from 18.08.1999 and terminated on 02.03.2020, after conducting full-fledged inquiry for the allegations of negligence and misconduct. There is no reason to discard that petitioner management has the material to show the nature of the disciplinary action taken against the respondent, albeit it was not placed before the controlling authority. ZIP 2 of 5 902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc 5. The counsel for the respondent has made apparently attractive submission that there is alternate remedy provided under Section 7(7) of the Act. Under given facts and circumstances, when the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court to condone laches and relegating the party to the alternate authority, I find that the objection raised by the respondent is liable to be rejected. The delay which is sought to be condoned is not inordinate. I do not find any malafides on the part of the petitioner in causing the delay. The petitioner is ready to avail the remedy of appeal and ready to abide by the mandatory conditions of depositing the entire amount. 6. It would be appropriate to relegate the parties for objective scrutiny of the matter. Prima facie, the petitioner has raised triable defense. If the termination of the services is out of the misconduct, willful omission and negligence causing loss or the damage to the management, the employer is absolved from paying the gratuity. In the teeth of disciplinary action, it would be appropriate to have the objective scrutiny as to the entitlement of the respondent to receive the amount of gratuity. 7. It has been recorded by the controlling authority that the evidence was not produced by the petitioners. There was appointment of a new principal. I find that the petitioner is likely to make out a case for remand before the appellate authority. ZIP 3 of 5 902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc 8. My attention is adverted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 10.08.2026 in the matter of Mahanagar Media Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Stanny Pereira passed in Writ Petition No.4574 of 2025. I have gone through paragraph Nos.12 to 14 of the judgment. In that case, the dispute was pertaining to the quantum of gratuity. There was no serious dispute regarding entitlement of the employee to the amount of gratuity. In those circumstances, the Court did not find it fit to grant any relief to the petitioner employer. However, in the case at hand, the facts are distinguishable. The petitioner has triable defense to get absolved from the liability of payment of gratuity. The judgment would not assist the Court. 9. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Prabhat Kumar Singh Versus ACCU Pack Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [arising out of SLP (c) No.16945 of 2025] I have gone through paragraph No.13. It would be matter of the Appellate Court or the trial authority in case of remand to consider as to whether the respondent is entitled to gratuity or not. If the petitioner succeeds, then it can get absolved from the liability of payment of gratuity. At this stage of the proceedings, this judgment would not help the respondent. 10. For maintaining appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act, the statutory condition is to deposit amount equal to the amount of gratuity ZIP 4 of 5 902-WP-1373-2026 (C).doc would be deposited. It would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 13,64,053/-. The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent for the lapses on its part. I, therefore, pass following order: ::ORDER:: A. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal to entertain appeal of the petitioner challenging judgment and order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Labour Court, Ratnagiri, if preferred within a period of four weeks from today. B. The Industrial Court shall decide the appeal on its own merits by extending opportunity of hearing to the parties, and the delay in preferring the appeal shall be treated to be condoned. C. The petitioners shall deposit entire amount of gratuity before the controlling authority within a period of three weeks from today, and produce the certificate to that effect before the appellate authority, which shall be the condition precedent. D. The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent before filing of appeal. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] ZIP 5 of 5