Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 4 in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013
A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 563/2023 has conclusively
held that the right to receive gratuity matures on the date of exit from
employment, neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate any period of
limitation for raising such a claim; and the rule-based limitation cannot
defeat the substantive statutory right. These decisions have been
consistently followed by this Court. The further principle that retiral dues
constitute property under Article 300-A of the Constitution and cannot be
withheld without authority of law (State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar
Shrivastava, 2013 AIR SCW 4749) further fortifies the conclusion. This
ground fails.
M/S. Madras Fertilisers Limited vs The Controlling Authority on 1 November, 2002
Gratuity payable under the Act of 1972 is a sum payable by reason of
termination of employment under a law, and therefore falls squarely within
clause (d) above. This view was taken by the Madras High Court in
Superintending Engineer v. Appellate Authority, Joint Commissioner of
Labour, 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 5357 (following Madras Fertilisers Ltd.
v. Controlling Authority, 2003 (97) FLR 275 (Mad.)), and the learned
Single Judge has correctly adopted the same. The Appellant, as principal
employer under the CLRA, was therefore obligated to pay gratuity upon
the contractor's default, with a right to recover the same from the
contractor from bills, securities, and other dues. The argument that Section
21(4) is confined to salary simpliciter is rejected.
Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 17 January, 1996
This notification has been in force since 01.10.1987 and has not been
superseded or substituted by any subsequent notification. As held by the
Jharkhand High Court in M/s. Tata Steel Limited v. The State of
Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P. (L) No. 4762/2023, decided on 18.12.2024):
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
12. The learned Single Judge, after examining all contentions on merits,
correctly declined to interfere with concurrent findings of two statutory
authorities. The scope of Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. As
held by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar
Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329: