Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra on 25 June, 1996

Vasantbhai vs Manager on 15 September, 2010

Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Kantibhai Hirabhai & 2 Ors. reported in 2010 II CLR 208 by the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the binding decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Supra) was not pointed out to the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge had no occasion to consider the said binding decision. Under the circumstances, the subsequent decision of this Court relied upon by the petitioner is per incurium.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document

Sk. Safijaddin @ Sk. Sofijuddin vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 May, 2026

It is seen that the appellant has not considered the service during the year 2012, as continuous, on the ground that the workman did not work for 240 days in that year. Now, with the amendment of The Payment of 4 Gratuity Act, 1972 (by Act 26 of 1984, w.e.f 11/02/1981), a new section has been inserted (Sec.2A), re-defining "continous service". Therefore, a perinanent workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a period unless a "brenk in service for that period has been declared by the employer. The appellent did not produce any evidence to prove that there was "break in service" of the workman during that year. Reference inay be drawn to Gujarat High Court judgement in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Mfg. Conipany Ltd. vs Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra, which says, "If the effect of this amendment is to be considered on the view which had been taken by the Supreme Court in Lalappa Lingoppa's case, it appears that through this amendment, what was denied to the permanent employees an account of their working for a period of less than 240 days in a year by remaining absent from duty without leave, has been granted so as to include such period for the purposes of continuous service and thus, the benefit which stood deied to the permanent employees was taken care of in terms of the amended Section 2A and now even the period of obsence without leave in case of permanent employee has to be treated as a part of continuous service for the purposes of payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act". Moreover, in the year 2012, the workman was superannuated on 01/07/2012, after rendering six months of service in that year. Hence, it is decided that the worknian rendered continuous service in that year and is eligible to get gratuity under Sec. 4 of The Gratuity Act for services rendered during that year. Hence the workman rendered 14 years of continuous service from 1973 to 2010 and 02 years from 01/08/2010 to 01/07/2012. The workman rendered 16 years of continuous service during the entire service period.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sk. Rahamat @ Sk. Rahamath vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 May, 2026

It is seen that the appellant has not considered the service during the year 2014, as continuous, on the ground that the workman did not work for 240 days in 5 that year. Now, with the amendment of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972( by Act 26 of 1984, w.e.f 11/02/1981), a new section has been inserted (Sec.2A), re-defining "continuous service". Therefore, a permanent workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a period unless a "break in service" for that period has been declared by the employer. The appellant did not produce any evidence to prove that there was "break in service" of the workman during that year. Reference may be drawn to Gujarat High Court judgement in the case of Mafatial Fine Spinning and Mfg. Company Ltd. vs Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra, which says, "If the effect of this amendment is to be considered on the view which had been taken by the Supreme Court in Lalappa Lingappa's case, it appears that through this amendment, what was denled to the permanent employees on account of their working for a period of less than 240 days in a year by remaining absent from duty without leave, has been granted so as to include such period for the purposes of continuous service and thus, the benefit which stood denied to the permanent employees was taken care of in terms of the amended Section 2A and now even the period of absence without leave in case of permanent employee has to be treated as a part of continuous service for the purposes of payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act".
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahiman Bibi @ Rohimon vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 May, 2026

for that period has been declared by the employer. The appellant did not produce any evidence to prove that there was "break in service" of the workman during these years. Reference may be drawn to Gujarat High Court judgement in 5 the case of Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Mfg. Company Ltd. vs Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra, which says, "If the effect of this amendment is to be considered on the view which had been taken by the Supreme Court in Lalappa Lingappa's case, it appears that through this amendment, what was denied to the permanent employees on account of their working for a period of less than 240 days in a year by remaining absent from duty without leave, has been granted so as to include such period for the purposes of continuous service and thus, the benefit which stood denied to the permanent employees was taken care of in terms of the amended Section 2A and now even the period of absence without leave in case of permanent employee has to be treated as a part of continuous service for the purposes of payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act".
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next