Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Gopalakrishna vs Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. on 16 June, 1995

Krishnendu Narayan Ghosh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 December, 1999

17. The next judgment on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 is a judgment of a learned single Judge of Karnataka High Court in B.L. Gopalakrishna v. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. reported in 1996 LIC 140. In that case before the employee superannuated a charge-sheet was issued against him. On superannuation the employee was relieved subject to the provisions of Rule 19(ii) of the applicable rules. Rule 19(ii) of the said Rules provided that the domestic enquiry proceedings if instituted against an employee in service shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in the services of the company even after the retirement of such employee. The said Rule further provided that no gratuity shall be paid to the employee until conclusion of such proceedings and issue of final orders. In that case, therefore, there was a specific provision in the Contract of Employment for continuing and concluding a disciplinary proceeding even after the retirement of the employee. That case has no application insofar as the present case is concerned.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - B Ghosh - Full Document

G. Chandrasekhar vs Chairman And Managing Director, Indian ... on 9 July, 1999

It is indeed difficult to conceive of a situation where the enquiry is valid and yet it cannot result in any punishment against the petitioner no matter he is found to be guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. In other words, although there is no termination order in existence as on date, it is not possible to say that no such order can be validly issued even in future on the basis of the pending disciplinary proceedings. Since the employer has the right to make such an order, withholding of the gratuity pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be found fault with. An almost similar situation had arisen in B.L, Gopalakrishna v Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited, Bangalore , where the question that fell for consideration was whether Rule 19 of the Conduct Rules providing for withholding of gratuity until the conclusion of the domestic enquiry proceedings and issue of final orders was in conflict with Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act. Repelling the contention that any such withholding of the gratuity was illegal and contrary to Section 4, this Court observed thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T S Thakur - Full Document

M/S. Transafe Services Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 27 July, 2016

Similarly, the judgment in the case of B.L. Gopalakrishna Vs. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd., reported in 1996 (3) L.L.N. 233, can also be distinguished on facts from the present case. A learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had held that the power to forfeit the amount of gratuity to the extent of the amount of loss caused by the employee would be incapable of a meaningful exercise unless the same is understood to carry with it the power to withhold the payment of the amount claimed pending the finalization of the enquiry proceedings instituted against the delinquent employee. Rule 19 of the Conduct and Disciplinary Action Rules of the concerned company gave such a power to the employer. The High Court had held that there was thus no conflict between the Rule 19 of the Conduct Rules and Section 4 of the Act. When, however, Rule 19 of the relevant rules provided that no gratuity should be paid to an employee until conclusion of domestic enquiry proceedings and issue of final order the same could not be made applicable to the facts of the present case. The retired employee in the reported judgment was already facing a disciplinary enquiry in respect of a charge-sheet issued against him. As mentioned earlier, no enquiry was pending against the present petitioner. As such, there is no question of now of terminating him for any of the acts provided in Section 4(6) of the Act after his resignation has been accepted unreservedly by the company. That apart, as rightly observed by the Appellate Authority that the company does not have any service rules empowering management to withhold the gratuity amount in case of any eventualities mentioned in Section 4(6) of the Act.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Chakrabarti - Full Document
1