Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Uco Bank & Ors vs Nityananda Paul & Anr on 29 September, 2016
Learned Counsel relies on a judgment of Calcutta High
Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. Nityananda Paul 3 in this behalf.
Thirdly, it is submitted that the Petitioner's application for determination of
his gratuity under Section 7 of the Act was within time, since non-payment
of gratuity is a continuous cause of action.
H. Jayarama Shetty vs The Sangli Bank Ltd. on 11 March, 2005
Learned Counsel relies on a
judgment of our court in the case of H. Jayarama Shetty vs. Sangli Bank
1 (2007) 1 SCC 663
2 2016 DGLaw(Chh) 1
3 2016 DGLaw(Cal) 554
3 / 10
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2018 01:15:46 :::
sat wp 9044-2017.doc
Ltd.4 in support of this proposition.
Management Of Tournamulla Estate vs Workmen on 26 March, 1973
(b)(i) provides for forfeiture in case of termination for "riotous or
disorderly conduct or any other act of violence". If these acts or omissions
or conducts need not be proved in any court of law as a condition of
forfeiture and can only be a matter of domestic inquiry, there is no basis for
claiming that the act referred to in clause (b)(ii), namely, "act which
constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude", must be proved in a
criminal court of competent jurisdiction. The termination may well be
based on proof of such act in a domestic inquiry. Besides, considerations of
purposive interpretation also negate any such construction of clause (b). As
noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Management of Tournamulla
Estate vs. Workmen5, the object of a gratuity scheme is to provide
retirement benefits to workmen who have rendered long and unblemished
service to the employer and thereby contributed to the prosperity of the
employer and therefore, it may not be correct to say that no misconduct,
however grave, can be visited with forfeiture of gratuity or part thereof.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Kamal Swaroop Tondon on 18 January, 2008
Even in a recent case, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Kamal
Swaroop Tondon6, the Supreme Court has held that retiral benefits "are
not paid to the employee gratuitously or merely as a matter of boon", but
they are paid to the employee "for his/her dedicated and devoted work". In
cases involving termination of an employee for misconduct, the law of
gratuity, i.e. Section 4(6), makes a distinction between various acts of
misconduct.
Jaswant Singh Gill vs M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 10 November, 2006
The observations run counter to the plain terms of
Clause b(ii) of sub-section (6) of Section 4 and, as I have observed above,
the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Gill's case lays down no such
proposition of law.
A.Padmanabhan vs Joint Commissioner Of Labour on 30 March, 2010
To the same effect are the observations of Madras High Court in
the case of Padmanabhan A. vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour,
9 (2006)2CALLT89(HC)
10 2008-III-LLJ-54(All)
7 / 10
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2018 01:15:46 :::
sat wp 9044-2017.doc
Chennai11. The court held that clause (ii) of Section 4(6)(b) was silent on
'conviction' and to insist upon a conviction would be a stress upon the
intent of the legislature.