Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (2.76 seconds)The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Section 4 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Jaswant Singh Gill vs M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 10 November, 2006
45. Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Gill vs. Bharat
Cooking Coal Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 663, held that the Act
provides for a close-knit scheme for payment of gratuity. It is a
complete code containing detailed provisions covering the
essential provisions of a scheme for gratuity. It not only creates
a right to payment of gratuity but also lays down the principles
for quantification thereof as also the conditions on which an
employee may be denied gratuity. The amount liable to be
forfeited would be only to the extent of damage or loss caused
which has to be quantified and while quantifying the said
amount an opportunity of hearing must be given to the
employee. This is because payment of gratuity is a statutory
right of an employee covered under the Act.
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Kamal Swaroop Tondon on 18 January, 2008
There has commonly been one
distinction between a retiral benefit like provident fund and
gratuity, viz., the former generally consists of the contribution
from the employee as well. It is, however, not a necessary
ingredient and where the employee is required to make his
contribution, there is no uniformity in the proportion of his share
of contribution. Likewise, the gratuity schemes may also provide
differing qualifying service for entitlement to gratuity. It is true
that in the case of gratuity an additional factor weighed with the
industrial adjudicators and Courts, viz., that being entirely a
payment made by the employer without there being a
corresponding contribution from the employee, the gratuity
scheme should not be so liberal as would induce the employees
to change employment after employment after putting in the
minimum service qualifying them to earn it. But as has been
pointed out by this Court in the Straw Board Mfg. Co. Ltd. case
(AIR 1977 SC 941) (supra), in view of the constantly growing
unemployment, the surplus labour and meagre opportunities for
employment, the premise on which a longer qualifying period of
service was prescribed for entitlement to gratuity on voluntary
retirement or resignation, was unsupported by reality. In the face
of the dire prospects of unemployment, it was facile to assume
that the labour would change or keep changing employment to
secure the paltry benefit of gratuity."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Y.K. Singla vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 14 December, 2012
In Y.K. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank (2013) 3 SCC
472 Supreme Court referred to Section 14 of the Act which says
that provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 18:16:08 :::
42
wp6077.2016.odt
contained in any enactment other than the Act or in any
instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment
other than the Act. Supreme Court has observed that in view of
Section 14 there is no doubt that superior status has been
vested in the provisions of the Act vis-a-vis any other enactment
inconsistent therewith . Supreme Court further held that under
the Act an employee would be entitled to interest on account of
delayed payment of gratuity in consonance with Section 7 (3-A)
of the Act.
Chairman Cum Managing Director ... vs Sri Rabindranath Choubey on 27 May, 2020
52. Admittedly, facts of the present case are clearly
distinguishable. Unlike in Rabindranath Choubey (supra), in the
present case a dismissal order has been passed whereafter
gratuity and leave encashment has been forfeited.