Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)
Binny Ltd. (Engineering Division) vs Assistant Commissioner Of Labour And ... on 19 April, 2000 cites

State Of Punjab vs Labour Court, Jullundur & Ors on 16 October, 1979

The Supreme Court in that case of State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullunder and Ors. (supra), was concerned with a claim for gratuity which had been made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court, after referring to the various provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, held that Act "enacts a complete code containing detailed provisions covering all the essential features of a scheme for payment of gratuity". None of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act expressly reserves the right of the employee to resort to the modes of recovery other than the one provided under that Act for recovery of the amount of gratuity. Payment of Gratuity Act thus being a special legislation on the subject of gratuity, it prevailed over legislation of a more general nature such as, the Industrial Disputes Act. That special legislation being a complete code on the subject dealt with in that enactment. That, however, is not the case with the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, which, while creating a right to receive subsistence allowance in favour of the workman by Sub-section (3) of the Act, and while providing a mode to recover for a limited period under Section 4 expressly preserves the right to the workman to resort to other modes of recovery. We cannot, therefore, approve the view taken by the learned single Judge that an application of recovery of subsistence allowance cannot be made under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 264 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next