Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Section 3 in The Delimitation Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Secretary, O.N.G.C. Ltd. And Anr vs V.U. Warrier on 20 April, 2005
24. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.U. Warrier (supra) is concerned, it would be suffice to state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has clearly held that the services of the retired employee in that case were not governed by the provisions of the Act, 1972 rather the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), of which the person was an employee, had its own rules pertaining to recovery of dues. Thus, the said judgment would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case.
Bankey Bihari Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 February, 2015
23. From a perusal of the provision of Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972 and the Division Bench's judgment of this Court passed in the case of Bankey Bihari Chauhan (supra), it is apparent that the gratuity of the petitioner's husband could only have been forfeited had he been terminated from service, may be for shortage of stores. However, the services were never terminated rather the petitioner's husband died in harness on 10.04.2021 and no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against him while he was in service and thus, the sine-qua-non for forfeiture of gratuity or making deductions from gratuity, as specified in Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972, never arose and thus the orders impugned, forfeiting / making deduction from gratuity of the petitioner's husband, are legally not tenable in the eyes of law and merit to be quashed.
1