Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

M.C.D. Vs. Nand Kishore

M.C.D. vs Nand Kishore

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 04, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710073

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
L.P.A. No. 415 of 2002
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Gratuity - Non-payment--Main grievance of the appellant that controlling authority did not take into consideration delay of the respondent in filing application--Grievance misconceived as the non-payment of gratuity being a continuing offence, there was no question of any delay in approaching the said authority. - ...

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.C.D.

Advocate Amita Gupta, Adv

Respondent

Nand Kishore

Legal References

Reported In
2003(66)DRJ135; [2003(97)FLR158]

Excerpt

gratuity - non-payment--main grievance of the appellant that controlling authority did not take into consideration delay of the respondent in filing application--grievance misconceived as the non-payment of gratuity being a continuing offence, there was no question of any delay in approaching the said authority. - - the respondent not being satisfied with the amount of gratuity paid to him, filed an application before the controlling authority under the payment of gratuity act, 1972. the controlling authority held the respondent entitled for an additional sum of rs.orderanil dev singh, j.c.m. 860/2002 :delay condoned. application stands disposed of. lpa 415/2002:1. we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned single judge.2. the respondent was employed as driver in the health department on 10th december, 1957. he retired from service on 30th june, 1998. the appellant paid a sum of rs. 1,09,098/- to the respondent as gratuity. the respondent not being satisfied with the amount of gratuity paid to him, filed an application before the controlling authority under the payment of gratuity act, 1972. the controlling authority held the respondent entitled for an additional sum of rs. 47,301/- which was short paid to him by the appellant. the main grievance of the appellant is that the controlling authority did not take into consideration delay of the respondent in filing the application under the payment of gratuity act, 1972 and the rules framed there under. the grievance of the appellant is misconceived as the non-payment of gratuity due to the respondent was a continuing wrong and there was no question of any delay in approaching the controlling authority. accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the controlling authority or the impugned order passed by the learned single judge. in the circumstances, the appeal fails and is thereforee dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Anil Dev Singh, J.

C.M. 860/2002 :

Delay condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

LPA 415/2002:

1. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The respondent was employed as driver in the Health Department on 10th December, 1957. He retired from service on 30th June, 1998. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1,09,098/- to the respondent as gratuity. The respondent not being satisfied with the amount of gratuity paid to him, filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority held the respondent entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 47,301/- which was short paid to him by the appellant. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Controlling Authority did not take into consideration delay of the respondent in filing the application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the rules framed there under. The grievance of the appellant is misconceived as the non-payment of gratuity due to the respondent was a continuing wrong and there was no question of any delay in approaching the Controlling Authority. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Controlling Authority or the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is thereforee dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial