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.
Appln. PGA - PGA
CNR: MHLC280001872024
Filing Number
195/2024
Filing Date
19-10-2024
Registration No
73/2024
Registration Date
19-10-2024
Court
Labour Court,Buldhana
Judge
1-Judge, Labour Court
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pushpa Bhaskar Wagh w/o Late Bhaskar Shankar Wagh
Adv. Gawande GR
Respondent(s)
Divisional Controller, MSRTC., Buldana Advocate - Sasankar SS
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judge, Labour Court
Disposed
Argument
Argument
Argument
Argument
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument |
| 25-02-2026 | Argument |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument |
| 06-02-2026 | Argument |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts