Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)

K. Karunakar vs Apsrtc And Ors. on 24 January, 2006

In Joseph N.K. Pradhan v. Industrial Tribunal (supra), a Division Bench of the Qrissa High Court dealt with the same issue, may be in a different context. In that case, the services of an employee were terminated on the ground of incapacity and old age. The termination, as such was not challenged. There existed a dispute as to the entitlement of the employee to be paid the gratuity. Therefore, the employee approached the Government and sought for reference. On a reference being made by the State Government, the Industrial Tribunal took up the matter. The employer raised an objection, as to the maintainability. It was urged that unless the very validity of termination of services is in challenge, Section 2-A cannot be invoked, for the ancillary purpose of determining the entitlement, to receive the gratuity. The Tribunal overruled the objection and proceeded to adjudicate the dispute, on merits. The Division Bench took the view that the expression "arising out of occurring in Section 2-A, of the Act, would take into its fold, incidental matters, such as entitlement to receive gratuity, and it is not necessary that the termination, as such must be in dispute.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - L N Reddy - Full Document

Indraprastha Power Generation Company ... vs Rama Kant Sharma And Anr. on 21 January, 2013

In Joseph Niranjan Kumar Pradhan (supra), the dispute raised by the workman pertained to the payment of gratuity to the workman whose services had been terminated on account of incapacity relating to old age and chronic ailment. The question arose whether the dispute regarding the claim for gratuity was one falling within the scope of Section 2A of the Act i.e. whether it is, or is not, connected with discharge, dismissal, W.P.(C) 5266/2011 & other connected matters Page 12 of 19 retrenchment or termination of service. The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court after considering the various decisions cited before it observed as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Apsrtc Rep., By Its Regional Manager, ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Courtii, ... on 18 February, 2022

This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the Orissa High Court in the case of Joseph Niranjan Kumar Pradhan (supra) and in the said case the issue was whether the dispute in respect of gratuity can also be looked into under Sectin 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or not. The Division Bench of Orissa High Court has arrived at a conclusion that once the termination is being looked into, the consequential effect of payment of gratuity can also be looked into, whereas in the present case, no such contingency is involved.
Telangana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Eid Parry (India) Ltd vs M.N.Padmanabhan on 26 June, 2008

In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the first respondent in Joseph Niranjan Kumar Pradhan's case, cited supra, the workman was terminated by the employer because of his incapacity related to old age and chronic ailment, whereas, this is a case where the first respondent voluntarily retired from service, which cannot be construed to be a termination, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal. So, the said decision is not of any help to the first respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document
1