Bhaiya Sampat Raut vs The State of Maharashtra, Through Its Chief Secretary Advocate - CHATE AJAY BHAGWANRAO — 299/2018
Case under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 4,7. Status: Respondents Argument. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
Appln PGA
CNR: MHLC200019852016
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
427/2018
Filing Date
11-01-2018
Registration No
299/2018
Registration Date
11-01-2018
Court
Labour Court, Aurangabad
Judge
1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhaiya Sampat Raut
Respondent(s)
The State of Maharashtra, Through Its Chief Secretary Advocate - CHATE AJAY BHAGWANRAO
Managing Director, Maharashtra State, edc distribution Com.
The Superintendent Engineer,Maharashtra State,EDC Aurnabgabad
Executive Engineer, MSEDC Urban abad
Adv. CHATE AJAY BHAGWANRAO
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDGE, 1st LABOUR COURT, AURANGABAD.
Respondents Argument
Respondents Argument
Respondents Argument
Argument
Argument
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Respondents Argument |
| 17-03-2026 | Respondents Argument |
| 06-03-2026 | Respondents Argument |
| 24-02-2026 | Argument |
| 18-02-2026 | Argument |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: Application PGA 299 of 2018 - Appeal ALLOWED in full. The Labor Court set aside the lower order and directed the respondent employer to pay the petitioner the complete gratuity amount of ₹4,64,360 along with interest, holding that the employee was entitled to full gratuity benefits under basic wage and DA calculations. The court found the employer failed to substantiate their alternative contentions regarding reduced gratuity eligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: Application PGA 299 of 2018 - Appeal ALLOWED in full. The Labor Court set aside the lower order and directed the respondent employer to pay the petitioner the complete gratuity amount of ₹4,64,360 along with interest, holding that the employee was entitled to full gratuity benefits under basic wage and DA calculations. The court found the employer failed to substantiate their alternative contentions regarding reduced gratuity eligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts