Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.15 seconds)
Jansukhlal Chhaganlal Nagori vs Regional Manager, Union Bank Of India on 19 August, 2002 cites

Gorakhpur University & Ors vs Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & Ors on 7 August, 2001

5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is required to be allowed. Mr. Pandit has drawn my attention to the prayer clause and has requested that the Bank may be directed to pay interest on the delayed payment of the P.F. as well as the gratuity amount. Considering the circumstances of record and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Gorakhpur University v. Shitla Prasad Nagendra, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2433, in my opinion it would be in the fitness of things that on the amount of arrears of P.F. as well as of gratuity the respondent-Bank is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent-Bank is, therefore, directed to pay to the petitioner the amount of Bank's contribution of P.F. concerning petitioner together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of such amount became payable till realisation. The respondent-Bank is also directed to pay the amount of gratuity admissible under the law to the petitioner together with 12% interest from the date it became payable to the petitioner till realisation. The aforesaid exercise to be carried out on or before 30th September, 2002.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 166 - Full Document

Central Bank Of India vs Ghanshyamlal Mohanlal Jani on 6 February, 1980

2.4 He has submitted that the gratuity which otherwise became payable to the petitioner upon his service coming to an end was not paid on the ground that the respondent-Bank was likely to suffer some monetary loss on account of petitioner's negligence in the matter of disbursing loans. Despite repeated requests no response was received by the petitioner from the Bank and ultimately, on 8th May, 1995 the Bank's decision withholding the gratuity along with P.F. was conveyed to the petitioner by the Assistant General Manager (I.R.) Central Office at Bombay. Mr. Pandit has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Ghanshyamlal Mohanlal Jani reported in 1981 GLR 145 and he has submitted to this Court that the facts of the present case and facts of the case under consideration of the Division Bench of this Court are very similar and the ratio laid down in this judgment squarely applies to the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1