Pushpa Bhaskar Wagh w/o Late Bhaskar Shankar Wagh vs Divisional Controller, MSRTC., Buldana Advocate - Sasankar SS — 73/2024

Case under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 7(4). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

Appln. PGA - PGA

CNR: MHLC280001872024

Filing Number

195/2024

Filing Date

19-Oct-2024

Registration No

73/2024

Registration Date

19-Oct-2024

Court

Labour Court,Buldhana

Judge

1-Judge, Labour Court

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Section 7(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Pushpa Bhaskar Wagh w/o Late Bhaskar Shankar Wagh

    Adv. Gawande GR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Divisional Controller, MSRTC., Buldana Advocate - Sasankar SS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The court allowed the petition and awarded full gratuity benefits to the petitioner (widow of a deceased transport department employee). The petitioner's husband worked for 17 years 1 month 2 days but received only 8 years' gratuity instead of the full amount calculated at ₹32,461. The court found the respondent department liable to pay the remaining shortfall of ₹17,185 plus 12% interest, ruling that the petitioner's 30-year delay in filing was reasonable under the circumstances and did not bar her claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge, Labour Court

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  7. 06-Feb-2026

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  9. 12-Jan-2026

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  10. 01-Jan-2026

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  11. 12-Dec-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  12. 28-Nov-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  13. 18-Nov-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  14. 14-Nov-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  15. 05-Nov-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  16. 28-Oct-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  17. 01-Oct-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  18. 20-Sep-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  19. 12-Sep-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  20. 11-Sep-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  21. 20-Aug-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  22. 06-Aug-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  23. 31-Jul-2025

    Argument

    Judge, Labour Court

  24. 17-Jul-2025

    Respondents Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  25. 03-Jul-2025

    EvidenceView PDF

  26. 03-Jul-2025

    Respondents Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  27. 17-Jun-2025

    EvidenceView PDF

  28. 17-Jun-2025

    Cross Examination

    Judge, Labour Court

  29. 05-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  30. 08-May-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  31. 21-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  32. 10-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  33. 27-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  34. 06-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  35. 20-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  36. 14-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  37. 31-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Judge, Labour Court

  38. 17-Jan-2025

    Issues

    Judge, Labour Court

  39. 03-Jan-2025

    Report

    Judge, Labour Court

  40. 14-Dec-2024

    Report

    Judge, Labour Court

  41. 18-Nov-2024

    Settlement

    Judge, Labour Court

  42. 04-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  43. 19-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 73/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court allowed the petition and awarded full gratuity benefits to the petitioner (widow of a deceased transport department employee). The petitioner's husband worked for 17 years 1 month 2 days but received only 8 years' gratuity instead of the full amount calculated at ₹32,461. The court found the respondent department liable to pay the remaining shortfall of ₹17,185 plus 12% interest, ruling that the petitioner's 30-year delay in filing was reasonable under the circumstances and did not bar her claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case