Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Section 4 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
Jaswant Singh Gill vs M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 10 November, 2006
In my opinion, para-13 of the judgment in Jaswant
Singh Gill (supra) would also be relevant because the
Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill (supra)
arrived at a finding that there is no entitlement to withhold the
gratuity because the conditions which were required for
applicability of Section 4(6) had not arisen inasmuch as in the
facts of that case the Disciplinary Authority had not passed an
order quantifying the loss or damage because the Disciplinary
Authority observed that punishment cannot be imposed after
retirement.
Section 7 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs M.H. Mazumdar on 24 February, 1988
24. I do not find anything in the applicable provision of
Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1973 which
brings to an end automatically the continuation of an enquiry
against a charged employee merely on account of
superannuation/retirement. If the provisions of Rules 188 and
189 have been held in the case of M.H. Mazumdar (supra) to
enable continuation of the departmental proceedings after
retirement of an employee, I find that the provision of Section
4(6) also does provide entitlement of forfeiture on account of
loss or damages caused by an employee and which
entitlement does not bear any co-relation to the incidence of
retirement of an employee because nothing in Section 4(6) of
the Payment of Gratuity Act at all provides that on retirement
there is disentitlement to continue the enquiry/departmental
proceedings against a superannuated employee. All that the
provision of Section 4(6) provides is that once the services
have been terminated i.e. in effect can be terminated if
employee was in service or the employee being found guilty of
act or willful omission or negligence causing any damage or
loss or destruction of property belonging to the employer,
then, forfeiture can be made of the gratuity, and if that be so,
this provision does not in any manner prohibit continuing of
the departmental enquiry after superannuation of the charged
official/retiring employee."
Ch.Cum-Man.Director Mahanadi ... vs Rabindranath Choubey on 29 October, 2013
27. I refrain from issuing any directions regarding continuation of
the disciplinary inquiry, or imposition of any alternative penalty by the
respondent, as the very permissibility of continuation of the
disciplinary inquiry, and imposition of a major penalty on the
petitioner, after he had superannuated from service, is still at large,
following the reference to the larger Bench, made by the Supreme
Court in Rabindranath Choubey (supra).
Jorsingh Govind Vanjari vs Divisional Controller Maharashtra ... on 6 December, 2016
11. Mr. Nath would, in surrejoinder thereto, contend that the
controversy, in Jorsingh Govind Vanjari (supra), was totally
different, and that the said decision does not refer, anywhere, to
Section 4(6) of the Act.
Uco Bank & Anr vs Rajinder Lal Capoor on 18 May, 2007
The
court distinguished another judgment in UCO Bank v.
Rajinder Lal Capoor [(2007) 6 SCC 694: (2007) 2 SCC (L&
S) 550] on the ground that in the said case the delinquent
officer had already been superannuated and the charge-sheet
was served after his retirement.
Ms. Neeru Abrol vs Chairman And Managing Director ... on 16 December, 2016
5. Arguing in opposition, Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath initially contested
the maintainability of the present writ petition, on the ground that
Section 7(6) of the Act provided an efficacious alternative remedy, by
way of appeal, to the appellate authority specified thereunder. He
relied, for the said purpose, on the judgements of this Court in Neeru
Abrol v. Chairman and Managing Director, National Fertilisers Ltd,
2017 (152) FLR 565, P. S. Gupta v. U.O.I., 2011 (3) LLJ 839 and S.
P. S. Rana v. National Seeds Corporation, 2007 (99) DRJ 227.
Yash Flour Mill (P) Ltd. Hardoi Thru ... vs Union Of India Thru Secretary Defence ... on 8 April, 2011
Supreme
Court thereafter observed in para 7 in the case of Bhagirathi
W.P.(C) 6301/2010 Page 28 of 35
Jena (supra) that departmental proceedings cannot continue
unless there was a provision for continuing the departmental
enquiry after superannuation in the relevant rules of the
employer-organization.