Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing K.P.Backiasamy vs The Appellate Authority on 21 November, 2007

Aspire Systems (India) Private Limited vs Mr.Venkatesh Veerasamy on 29 May, 2025

22.In the foregoing circumstances, this Court finds no illegality in the 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm ) W.P.Nos.25310 & 25314 of 2021 orders passed by the Controlling Authority in condoning the delay in the applications filed by the contesting respondents. In view of the said orders, the two interim applications filed by the petitioner in each of the P.G. Cases are held to be vexatious and are liable to be rejected. The petitioner cannot evade adjudication on the merits, particularly when substantial amounts claimed as gratuity have been forfeited without proper justification. Accordingly, both writ petitions stand dismissed. The Controlling Authority is at liberty to proceed with the adjudication of the gratuity claims in P.G. Case Nos. 96/2019 and 95/2019, after issuing notice to both parties and disposing of the cases on their merits. The petitioner is directed to file its counter within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Chennai-6) is directed to complete the adjudication and pass appropriate orders within three (3) months thereafter. All connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Rajakannu vs The Management on 22 April, 2025

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Backiasamy K.P. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 03:24:44 pm ) W.P.No.2905 of 2020 Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai, reported in 2008 (1) LLJ 575 (Mad), to contend that the State Government does not possess the rule-making power to prescribe any period of limitation under the Act. Consequently, it was argued that the requirement mandating the filing of an application within 90 days is not legally sustainable.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1