Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (4.50 seconds)Section 2A in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
M/S. Budge Budge Company Limited vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 October, 2023
15. Herein the Court decided in favour of workman on the finding that the
suspension of work in that case was not for the fault of the workman.
Lalappa Lingappa & Ors vs Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., ... on 11 February, 1981
15. Casual workmen do not normally remain
on any payroll on record of a Company. It is only
permanent workman who are on the muster roll of
the Company. To make a Badli workman entitled to
gratuity for the aforesaid 4 years where admittedly
he has not been engaged for 240 days in a year
whether it is the fault of the workman or otherwise,
would be completely fallacious in view of the
succinct explanation of the status of the Badli
workman in the Lalappa Lingappa case (supra).
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co., Ltd vs Workmen And Ors. Etc on 27 September, 1968
16. As regards badli employees, there can be
no doubt that they are not in uninterrupted service
and, therefore, they do not fall within the
substantive part of the definition "continuous
service" in Section 2(c), but are covered by
Explanation I. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v.
Workmen [AIR 1970 SC 919 : (1969) 2 SCR 307,
338 : (1969) 2 LLJ 755] the court, while dealing
with a gratuity scheme, repelled the contention
urged on behalf of the badli employees that since
they had to register themselves with the
management of the textile mills and were required
every day to attend the mills for ascertaining
whether work would be provided to them or not,
the condition requiring that they should have
worked for not less than 240 days in a year to
qualify for gratuity was unjust and observed:
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
M/S. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., Calcutta vs Its Workmen on 3 March, 1961
(emphasis added)
The legislature has departed from the meaning
given by this Court in the above case to the
expression "continuous service" by incorporating
the words "not due to any fault on the part of the
employee concerned", to give that expression a
restricted legal connotation.
Sita Ram & Ors vs Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training ... on 5 March, 2008
There are several judgements in this regard but reference
may be drawn to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in para 12, in the case of Sita Ram & Ors vs
Mati Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute (AIR 2008 SC
1955) which goes as under-
Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra on 25 June, 1996
for that period has been declared by the employer. The
appellant did not produce any evidence to prove that there
was "break in service" of the workman during these years.
Reference may be drawn to Gujarat High Court judgement in
5
the case of Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Mfg. Company Ltd. vs
Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra, which says,
"If the effect of this amendment is to be considered on the
view which had been taken by the Supreme Court in Lalappa
Lingappa's case, it appears that through this amendment,
what was denied to the permanent employees on account of
their working for a period of less than 240 days in a year by
remaining absent from duty without leave, has been granted
so as to include such period for the purposes of continuous
service and thus, the benefit which stood denied to the
permanent employees was taken care of in terms of the
amended Section 2A and now even the period of absence
without leave in case of permanent employee has to be
treated as a part of continuous service for the purposes of
payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act".
Bank Of India vs Central Government Industrial ... on 16 June, 2010
i. Bank of India vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal &
Ors., 2010 SCC Online Cal 1718.