Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.22 seconds)THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Section 4 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Bharat Singh vs Management Of New Delhi Tuberculosis ... on 4 April, 1986
The Labour Court in its award dated September 28, 1983 held that the termination
of services of the appellant, was wrongful and illegal and that he was entitled
to be reinstated with continuity of service. It directed that the appellant
would be entitled to back wages at the rate at which he was drawing them when
his services were terminated. The management challenged the award on January 31,
1984 by filing a writ petition before the High Court. On December 12, 1984 the
appellant moved an application under s. 17-B of the Act for a direction to the
management to pay him full wages last drawn by him during the pendency of the
writ petition. The High Court held that the section was applicable only to cases
where the awards were passed after its commencement, and since the award in that
case was passed prior to August 21, 1984 the section had no application.
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 July, 2010
It is also noteworthy that the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) v.
Jagdish Singh12, in support of his contention that delay shall not be condoned
for mere asking and in the absence of sufficient cause. It is appropriate to
notice the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 26 of the said
Judgment in the following words:
Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' ... vs Administrative Officer And Ors on 13 January, 2004
The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers' Assn. V.
Administrative Officer13. The said case dealt with the question as to whether a
teacher would fall within the definition of "employee", as defined in Clause
2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act or not. The Supreme Court had held that no
teacher can be said to be covered by the said expression and consequently, not
entitled for payment of gratuity. This judgment is not of much help to the
petitioner's cause, for, the respondent workman herein is not a member of the
teaching faculty of the college, but he is a non-teaching employee, who squarely
falls within the sweep of the expression "employee" used in Clause 2(e) of the
Act.
Mrf Ltd., Kottayam vs Assistant Commissioner ... on 21 September, 2006
The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment rendered in MRF Ltd.,
Kottayam v. Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax14, wherein the Supreme
Court had set at rest all speculative aspects relating to the retrospective
effect of the provisions of the Act or notifications and set out that unless the
express language renders it otherwise bringing them with retrospective effect,
all provisions of Acts and notifications are to be construed to be prospective
in their operation. The case on hand never specified that the notification dated
03.04.1997 of the Central Government is brought with retrospective effect. It
is purely prospective in nature. Hence, all such employees, who can be covered
by the sweep of Section 4 of the Act, become entitled for payment of gratuity
thereafter.