Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Section 3 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Y.K. Singla vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 14 December, 2012
31. The second ground taken by the writ
petitioner is that the payment of interest could not be
reduced from 10% to 5%. Even on this aspect, the
26
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.K. Sigla vs. Punjab
National Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9087 of
2012, decided on 14.12.2012) and D.D. Tiwari vs.
Uttar Haryana Bizli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Civil
Appeal No. 7113 of 2014) and Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department,
Works Contract & Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla &
Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785, has consistently held
that the rate of interest cannot be reduced once it was
granted by the prevalent rules of banking. Hence, in
the present case, the petitioners (employees) are
entitled for interest at the rate of 7%.
Beed District Central Co-Operative ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 29 September, 2006
32. The judgment, referred to by the counsel for
the Canara Bank, which is Beed District Central
Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
and others (2006) 8 SCC 514, will not be applicable
to the facts of the present case as in that case the
Supreme Court was not examining the definitions of
special allowances, emoluments, pay and salary of the
Bank employees. It was examining the option exercised
by an employee of the Bank. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court was examining the provisions of the Banking
Regulations, which had been opted by the employee at
27
the time of joining the Cooperative Bank. It was held
therein that the employees, thereafter, could not claim
the benefit of calculation of gratuity under the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors vs Chinmay Majumdar & Ors on 4 February, 2021
34. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank and others vs.
Chinmay Majumdar & others (F.M.A. 657 of 2020,
decided on 04.02.2021) cannot be made applicable in
the facts of the present case as the Calcutta High Court
in that case was dealing with the definition of 'pay' as
per the Regulations with respect to officers and
employees in the matter of calculation of gratuity and it
was held that once the employee had accepted the
entitlement under the Regulations, in that case, they
could not claim the benefit of definition of 'pay' which
was applicable to officers.
K.T.Muralee Mohanan vs The Corporation Bank on 10 October, 2018
1318 of
2018, 1316 of 2018 & 1317 of 2018, decided on
26.02.2019), the SLP against which was dismissed by
the Supreme Court, and in the judgment of the Kerala
High Court in Muralee Mohanan K.T. and others vs.
Corporation Bank and others (WP (C) No. 32386
of 2015 (W), decided on 15.10.2019).
Madhyanchal Gramin Bank vs All India Gramin Bank Pensioners ... on 7 May, 2019
Even this judgment is not
applicable as in this judgment, the Calcutta High Court
was not examining the definition of 'pay' for the
purpose of calculation of gratuity and this aspect has
28
been considered in detail in the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner (II) W.B. vs. Vivekanand
Vidhya Mandir & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6221 of
2011, decided on 28.02.2019), in the judgment of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhyanchal Gramin
Bank and others vs. All India Gramin Bank
Pensioners Organisation Unit (WA Nos.