Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
M.P. State Agro Industries Development ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007
In this connection, the judgment of the Apex Court in
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.
and Another v. Jahan Khan [(2007) 10 SCC 88] is to be
38
WP(C) No.21217 of 2018
and conn.cases 2024:KER:85675
referred to. In that judgment, the Apex Court has held as
under:
R. Rajendran Nair vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 1997
16. A Full Bench of this Court in Raveendran Nair v.
State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 605] has also held that no
39
WP(C) No.21217 of 2018
and conn.cases 2024:KER:85675
recovery is possible from an employee unless the liability has
been fixed by way of disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the fact
that there should be a categoric fixation of liability is clear. Such
fixation of liability in the case at hand can only be by following
the method prescribed under the Service Rules referred to
earlier.
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Smt. P. Laxmi Devi on 25 February, 2008
In Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.
Smt.P.Laxmi Devi [(2008) 4 SCC 720], the Apex Court, with
reference to the hierarchy of legal norms - "grundnorm" - has
held as under:-
By Advs.Sri.Harisankar vs By Advs.Sri.Harisankar V. Menon on 16 June, 2014
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
ln
45
WP(C) No.21217 of 2018
and conn.cases 2024:KER:85675
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11777/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Ramakrishnan P.K vs Kerala State Beverages (M & M) ... on 13 January, 2021
18. At this juncture, the contention raised by Sri.T.Naveen,
41
WP(C) No.21217 of 2018
and conn.cases 2024:KER:85675
with respect to the recovery from the gratuity amount, is to be
considered. He contends that by virtue of the provisions of Rule
8(1) of the Service Rules, the provisions of the Kerala Service
Rules (KSR) are adopted insofar as the Service Rules do not
stipulate how the liability/dues to the respondent Corporation
can be recovered from superannuated abkari workers. He,
therefore, submits that the dues can be recovered with
reference to the provisions of Note 2 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR
from the gratuity payable to the employee. Here, it may be
noticed that the very same contention was considered by a
Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as
Ramakrishnan P.K. v. Kerala State Beverages(M&M)
Corporation Ltd. and Others [2022 (2) KHC 503]. The
Division Bench of this Court noticed that Chapter V of the
Service Rules provides for gratuity, and a recovery of liabilities
from an employee out of the gratuity, as provided under Rules
76, 77, and 78. In such circumstances, this Court noticed that
the respondent Corporation can only rely on the provisions of
42
WP(C) No.21217 of 2018
and conn.cases 2024:KER:85675
Rule 3 of Part III KSR to the extent of non-mentioning of fixation
of liability/grant of gratuity under the Service Rules. This Court
also noticed the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and
went on to hold as under:
1