Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (2.34 seconds)
Documents citing Charan Singh vs Birla Textiles & Anr on 31 August, 1988

The National Textile Corporation Ltd vs Sri.S.S.Ashok on 24 November, 2020

10. A reading of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court would makes it clear that an employer is liable to pay interest on belated payment of gratuity amount. The question of delay in making application by the 1st respondent to the Controlling Authority praying for interest as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not the case of the petitioner that delay in payment of gratuity is due to the fault of the employee or the petitioner obtained 16 permission from the Controlling Authority for the delayed payment of gratuity. The contention of the petitioner that the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority wrongly interpreted Section 7 of the Act has no merit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S G Pandit - Full Document

R.S.R.T.C. vs Ghanshyam Singh And Anr. on 3 July, 2000

3. Mr. Kewal Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously canvassed that the order dated November 23, 1992 clearly says that the workman will not be entitled to the back wages and only consequential benefits. Therefore the presumption drawn by the learned Labour Court that the computation of the back wages is left to it is not justified and not in accordance with the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act and computation of back wages is without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr., 1995 (1) SCC 235 : 1995-I-LLJ-395; RSRTC v. Ramavtar Sharma, 1998-I-LLJ-973 (Raj); State of Punjab v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177; Charan Singh v. Birla Textiles, AIR 1988 SC 2022 : 1988 (4) SCC 212 : 1989-I-LLJ-250; Maneck v. Phonex Mills Ltd., 1993-III-LLJ (Suppl)-69 (Bom); Anand Narain Shukla v. State of M.P., IV Sc.L.J. 1950-83; State of U.P. v. Anil Behari, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 207 : 1993-I-LLJ-317; U.P. Warehousing v. Vijay Narain, AIR 1980 SC 840 : 1980 (3) SCC 459 and Mewad v. State of U.P., 2000 Lab IC 395.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Bombay Gas Public Ltd. Co. vs Papa Akbar And Another on 18 September, 1989

14. The Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Birla Textiles and Anr., reported in (1989-I-LLJ-250) has held that Section 7(3A) is prospective in its application any not retrospectively. This however, does not affect the right of the 1st respondent to claim compound interest from the date of issue of the certificate for that amount under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Under this section if the amount of gratuity is not paid by the employer the Controlling Authority shall, on an application made by the aggrieved person, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector who shall recover the same together with compound interest as set out therein. In the present case Section 8 certificate has been issued on 27th January, 1988. Hence the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of Section 8.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Shri Gurudeo Ayurved Mahavidyalaya And ... vs Madhav Narayan Mahakode And Ors. on 21 January, 1994

It is to be found that probably the controlling authority relied on this language of Section 8 for granting the 9% compound interest on the amount payable. Shri Chandurkar relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Charan Singh v. Birla Textiles (1989-I-LLJ-250). The facts and controversy involved therein are totally similar to the present case. The Supreme Court held that the law as it stood before the amendment did not provide for payment of any interest and it is only for that reason that Sub-section (3A) was added by Amending Act XXII of 1987, to Section 7. The Supreme Court also held that Sub-section (3A) was prospective. The ratio is binding on this Court. Admittedly, the employee had retired on April 30, 1986, i.e. prior to this amendment and as such he could not have been given the additional amount of interest. Shri Gordey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 employee pointed out that in fact because of the dismissal of appeal, the order passed by the controlling authority had become final and as such it could not now be interfered by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. No doubt, this argument is attractive. However, it will have to be considered that the controlling authority had no power whatsoever to grant any interest, as it did. The grant of interest, therefore, was beyond the jurisdiction and the power of the controlling authority and in that view, the controlling authority had acted in excess of its powers. Even if the order was finalised, in the sense that the appeal against the same was dismissed, the fact remains that the controlling authority had no jurisdiction and powers to grant the compound interest at 9% as it did. It does appear that the compound interest which has been given by the controlling authority, has been given under the misconception of law, as it wrongly relied upon Section 8. In that view of the matter, the jurisdictional error can always be corrected in this writ jurisdiction. Therefore, it will have to be held that the grant of compound interest at 9% per annum was beyond the powers of the controlling authority and it could not have granted the same. The argument to that limited extent will have to be accepted.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

B.P.Plc (Formerly B.P.Amoco Plc) A ... vs The Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 2 May, 2002

ii) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Charan Singh Vs. Birla Textiles, was again a case where it was conceded that there was no provision in the Act for payment of interest. This judgment has no application as in the instant case, as the Respondents contend that Sec.11(1) of SEBI Act and Regulation 44 empowers the Board to award interest.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 17 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs The Appellate Authority And on 25 March, 2010

In the case of Charan Singh v. Birla Textiles ((1988) 4 SCC 212) this aspect was noticed in the following words: (SCC pp.214-15, para 4) 4. There was no provision in the Act for payment of interest when the same was quantified by the controlling authority and before the Collector was approached for its realization. In fact, it is on the acceptance of the position that there was a lacuna in the law that Act 22 of 1987 brought about the incorporation of sub-section (3-A) in Section 7. That provision has prospective application.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next