Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors
Decided On : Nov-27-2013
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '27.11.2013', (int) 2 => '7.8.2013', (int) 3 => '21.10.2011', (int) 4 => 'No.3', (int) 5 => '2', (int) 6 => 'No.3', (int) 7 => 'No.3', (int) 8 => '8.4.2006', (int) 9 => 'No.3', (int) 10 => 'No.3', (int) 11 => 'No.3', (int) 12 => 'one', (int) 13 => 'No.3', (int) 14 => 'No.3', (int) 15 => '3', (int) 16 => 'No.3', (int) 17 => '21.10.2011', (int) 18 => 'No.3', (int) 19 => '1.7.2007', (int) 20 => '21.10.2011', (int) 21 => '4', (int) 22 => '6', (int) 23 => 'No.3', (int) 24 => 'No.3', (int) 25 => 'No.3', (int) 26 => '5', (int) 27 => 'No.3', (int) 28 => '12.4.2007', (int) 29 => 'No.3', (int) 30 => 'No.3', (int) 31 => 'No.3', (int) 32 => '12.4.2007', (int) 33 => 'No.3', (int) 34 => 'No.3', (int) 35 => '6', (int) 36 => '12.4.2007', (int) 37 => 'No.3', (int) 38 => '53' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'JUDICATURE', (int) 1 => 'RAJASTHAN', (int) 2 => 'Sanjeev Johari', (int) 3 => 'Sandeep Bhatnagar', (int) 4 => 'Udaipur', (int) 5 => 'Bhilwara' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'The Appellate Authority', (int) 1 => 'COURT:-', (int) 2 => 'Annex', (int) 3 => 'Annex', (int) 4 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 5 => 'Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995', (int) 6 => 'FAX', (int) 7 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 8 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 9 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 10 => 'the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act', (int) 11 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 12 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 13 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 14 => 'the Payment of Gratuity Act', (int) 15 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1972', (int) 1 => '1956', (int) 2 => '1972', (int) 3 => '1972', (int) 4 => 'the year 1993', (int) 5 => '12.4.2007', (int) 6 => '30th of June, 2007', (int) 7 => '1st of July, 2007', (int) 8 => '30th of June, 2007', (int) 9 => '7.8.2013', (int) 10 => '1972', (int) 11 => '7th of Sept., 2007', (int) 12 => '30.6.2007', (int) 13 => 'more than 14 years', (int) 14 => 'six months'' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rajasthan', (int) 1 => 'Jaipur', (int) 2 => 'Bhilwara', (int) 3 => 'Mumbai', (int) 4 => 'Jaipur' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '9%' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1100192', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-11-27', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.</p><p> </p></p>ORDER<p><p> S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12789/2013 Shree Rajasthan Syntex LTD.versus The Appellate Authority, Payment for Gratuity Act 1972 & ORS.Date of order : 27.11.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.Sanjeev Johari for petitioner.</p><p> BY THE COURT:- The petitioner, which is a company, registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition while challenging the order dated 7.8.2013 (Annex.P/14) passed by the appellate authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the order dated 21.10.2011 (Annex.P/10) passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.</p><p> Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3, Sandeep Bhatnagar was initially appointed on the post of Sales Assistant with the petitioner-company in the year 1993.</p><p> The 2 respondent No.3 was thereafter promoted on the post of Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995 and on the post of Sales Officer w.e.f.1.8.2001 and was posted from head office Udaipur to Bhilwara office.</p><p> The petitioner company thereafter promoted the respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) vide order dated 8.4.2006.</p><p> The respondent No.3 thereafter was promoted as Dy.</p><p> Manager (Marketing) and he was transferred from Bhilwara to Mumbai w.e.f.1.5.2006.</p><p> On 12.4.2007, the respondent No.3 while working on the post of Dy.</p><p> Manager (Marketing).submitted his resignation and requested the petitioner-company to relieve him before 30th of June, 2007.</p><p> On 1st of July, 2007, the respondent No.3 handed over charge to one Shri Anil Jain and informed the petitioner-company through FAX and left the job of the company.</p><p> When the petitioner-company did not pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent No.3 payable upto 30th of June, 2007, the respondent No.3 moved an application before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act Act, Udaipur 3 and has raised a claim for payment of gratuity.</p><p> The claim of the respondent No.3 was contested by the petitioner-company, however, the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act passed an order dated 21.10.2011 and accepted the claim of the respondent No.3 and directed the petitioner-company to deposit gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.88,846/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.7.2007.</p><p> Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner-company preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Jaipur.</p><p> The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.8.2013.</p><p> Being aggrieved with the aforesaid ordeRs.the petitioner-company has preferred this writ petition.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in passing the impugned orders because as per the 4 provisions of Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee, whose services have been terminated for disorderly conduct, is not entitled for payment of gratuity and the gratuity payable to such employee is liable to be forfeited.</p><p> It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-company that as the respondent No.3 was indulged in disorderly conduct, hence, he is not entitled for the gratuity amount.</p><p> The learned counsel for the petitioner-company has further submitted that before abandoning the job, the respondent No.3 did not give any notice to the petitioner- company as per the terms and conditions of the contract and despite repeated reminders by the petitioner-company, the respondent No.3 did not join his duties, hence, the said conduct of the petitioner comes within the definition of disorderly conduct.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner-company has further argued that both the authorities have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and have illegally passed the impugned ordeRs.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner- 5 company and perused the impugned ordeRs.It is not in dispute that the respondent No.3 has resigned from the services of petitioner-company on 12.4.2007 w.e.f.30.6.2007.</p><p> It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.3 did not execute the renewed contract service with the petitioner-company.</p><p> The petitioner-company issued a charge sheet against the respondent No.3 for continued absence from duty vide letter dated 7th of Sept., 2007, but it is not in dispute that prior to that, the respondent No.3 had resigned from the service on 12.4.2007 and left the job on 30.6.2007.</p><p> It is also not borne out from the material placed on record that the petitioner- company conducted a full fledged enquiry in respect of the charge sheet issued by it to the respondent No.3.</p><p> The controlling authority as well as appellate authority have taken into consideration all these aspects and thereafter passed the impugned ordeRs.It is observed that the respondent No.3 served with the petitioner-company for more than 14 years and he resigned from the petitioner- 6 company on 12.4.2007 w.e.f.30.6.2007 because the agreed allowances were not paid to him by the petitioner-company.</p><p> As the respondent No.3 has not signed the renewed contract, he was not required to serve six months' notice on the petitioner-company before quiting his job.</p><p> Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.</p><p> The same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> [VIJAY BISHNOI].,J.</p><p> Babulal/ 53', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The Appellate Authority and ors', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1100192' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '27.11.2013', (int) 2 => '7.8.2013', (int) 3 => '21.10.2011', (int) 4 => 'No.3', (int) 5 => '2', (int) 6 => 'No.3', (int) 7 => 'No.3', (int) 8 => '8.4.2006', (int) 9 => 'No.3', (int) 10 => 'No.3', (int) 11 => 'No.3', (int) 12 => 'one', (int) 13 => 'No.3', (int) 14 => 'No.3', (int) 15 => '3', (int) 16 => 'No.3', (int) 17 => '21.10.2011', (int) 18 => 'No.3', (int) 19 => '1.7.2007', (int) 20 => '21.10.2011', (int) 21 => '4', (int) 22 => '6', (int) 23 => 'No.3', (int) 24 => 'No.3', (int) 25 => 'No.3', (int) 26 => '5', (int) 27 => 'No.3', (int) 28 => '12.4.2007', (int) 29 => 'No.3', (int) 30 => 'No.3', (int) 31 => 'No.3', (int) 32 => '12.4.2007', (int) 33 => 'No.3', (int) 34 => 'No.3', (int) 35 => '6', (int) 36 => '12.4.2007', (int) 37 => 'No.3', (int) 38 => '53' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'JUDICATURE', (int) 1 => 'RAJASTHAN', (int) 2 => 'Sanjeev Johari', (int) 3 => 'Sandeep Bhatnagar', (int) 4 => 'Udaipur', (int) 5 => 'Bhilwara' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'The Appellate Authority', (int) 1 => 'COURT:-', (int) 2 => 'Annex', (int) 3 => 'Annex', (int) 4 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 5 => 'Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995', (int) 6 => 'FAX', (int) 7 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 8 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 9 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 10 => 'the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act', (int) 11 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 12 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 13 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 14 => 'the Payment of Gratuity Act', (int) 15 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1972', (int) 1 => '1956', (int) 2 => '1972', (int) 3 => '1972', (int) 4 => 'the year 1993', (int) 5 => '12.4.2007', (int) 6 => '30th of June, 2007', (int) 7 => '1st of July, 2007', (int) 8 => '30th of June, 2007', (int) 9 => '7.8.2013', (int) 10 => '1972', (int) 11 => '7th of Sept., 2007', (int) 12 => '30.6.2007', (int) 13 => 'more than 14 years', (int) 14 => 'six months'' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rajasthan', (int) 1 => 'Jaipur', (int) 2 => 'Bhilwara', (int) 3 => 'Mumbai', (int) 4 => 'Jaipur' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '9%' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1100192', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-11-27', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.</p><p> </p></p>ORDER<p><p> S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12789/2013 Shree Rajasthan Syntex LTD.versus The Appellate Authority, Payment for Gratuity Act 1972 & ORS.Date of order : 27.11.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.Sanjeev Johari for petitioner.</p><p> BY THE COURT:- The petitioner, which is a company, registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition while challenging the order dated 7.8.2013 (Annex.P/14) passed by the appellate authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the order dated 21.10.2011 (Annex.P/10) passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.</p><p> Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3, Sandeep Bhatnagar was initially appointed on the post of Sales Assistant with the petitioner-company in the year 1993.</p><p> The 2 respondent No.3 was thereafter promoted on the post of Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995 and on the post of Sales Officer w.e.f.1.8.2001 and was posted from head office Udaipur to Bhilwara office.</p><p> The petitioner company thereafter promoted the respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) vide order dated 8.4.2006.</p><p> The respondent No.3 thereafter was promoted as Dy.</p><p> Manager (Marketing) and he was transferred from Bhilwara to Mumbai w.e.f.1.5.2006.</p><p> On 12.4.2007, the respondent No.3 while working on the post of Dy.</p><p> Manager (Marketing).submitted his resignation and requested the petitioner-company to relieve him before 30th of June, 2007.</p><p> On 1st of July, 2007, the respondent No.3 handed over charge to one Shri Anil Jain and informed the petitioner-company through FAX and left the job of the company.</p><p> When the petitioner-company did not pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent No.3 payable upto 30th of June, 2007, the respondent No.3 moved an application before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act Act, Udaipur 3 and has raised a claim for payment of gratuity.</p><p> The claim of the respondent No.3 was contested by the petitioner-company, however, the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act passed an order dated 21.10.2011 and accepted the claim of the respondent No.3 and directed the petitioner-company to deposit gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.88,846/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.7.2007.</p><p> Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner-company preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Jaipur.</p><p> The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.8.2013.</p><p> Being aggrieved with the aforesaid ordeRs.the petitioner-company has preferred this writ petition.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in passing the impugned orders because as per the 4 provisions of Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee, whose services have been terminated for disorderly conduct, is not entitled for payment of gratuity and the gratuity payable to such employee is liable to be forfeited.</p><p> It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-company that as the respondent No.3 was indulged in disorderly conduct, hence, he is not entitled for the gratuity amount.</p><p> The learned counsel for the petitioner-company has further submitted that before abandoning the job, the respondent No.3 did not give any notice to the petitioner- company as per the terms and conditions of the contract and despite repeated reminders by the petitioner-company, the respondent No.3 did not join his duties, hence, the said conduct of the petitioner comes within the definition of disorderly conduct.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner-company has further argued that both the authorities have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and have illegally passed the impugned ordeRs.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner- 5 company and perused the impugned ordeRs.It is not in dispute that the respondent No.3 has resigned from the services of petitioner-company on 12.4.2007 w.e.f.30.6.2007.</p><p> It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.3 did not execute the renewed contract service with the petitioner-company.</p><p> The petitioner-company issued a charge sheet against the respondent No.3 for continued absence from duty vide letter dated 7th of Sept., 2007, but it is not in dispute that prior to that, the respondent No.3 had resigned from the service on 12.4.2007 and left the job on 30.6.2007.</p><p> It is also not borne out from the material placed on record that the petitioner- company conducted a full fledged enquiry in respect of the charge sheet issued by it to the respondent No.3.</p><p> The controlling authority as well as appellate authority have taken into consideration all these aspects and thereafter passed the impugned ordeRs.It is observed that the respondent No.3 served with the petitioner-company for more than 14 years and he resigned from the petitioner- 6 company on 12.4.2007 w.e.f.30.6.2007 because the agreed allowances were not paid to him by the petitioner-company.</p><p> As the respondent No.3 has not signed the renewed contract, he was not required to serve six months' notice on the petitioner-company before quiting his job.</p><p> Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.</p><p> The same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> [VIJAY BISHNOI].,J.</p><p> Babulal/ 53', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The Appellate Authority and ors', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1100192' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '27.11.2013', (int) 2 => '7.8.2013', (int) 3 => '21.10.2011', (int) 4 => 'No.3', (int) 5 => '2', (int) 6 => 'No.3', (int) 7 => 'No.3', (int) 8 => '8.4.2006', (int) 9 => 'No.3', (int) 10 => 'No.3', (int) 11 => 'No.3', (int) 12 => 'one', (int) 13 => 'No.3', (int) 14 => 'No.3', (int) 15 => '3', (int) 16 => 'No.3', (int) 17 => '21.10.2011', (int) 18 => 'No.3', (int) 19 => '1.7.2007', (int) 20 => '21.10.2011', (int) 21 => '4', (int) 22 => '6', (int) 23 => 'No.3', (int) 24 => 'No.3', (int) 25 => 'No.3', (int) 26 => '5', (int) 27 => 'No.3', (int) 28 => '12.4.2007', (int) 29 => 'No.3', (int) 30 => 'No.3', (int) 31 => 'No.3', (int) 32 => '12.4.2007', (int) 33 => 'No.3', (int) 34 => 'No.3', (int) 35 => '6', (int) 36 => '12.4.2007', (int) 37 => 'No.3', (int) 38 => '53' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'JUDICATURE', (int) 1 => 'RAJASTHAN', (int) 2 => 'Sanjeev Johari', (int) 3 => 'Sandeep Bhatnagar', (int) 4 => 'Udaipur', (int) 5 => 'Bhilwara' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'The Appellate Authority', (int) 1 => 'COURT:-', (int) 2 => 'Annex', (int) 3 => 'Annex', (int) 4 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 5 => 'Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995', (int) 6 => 'FAX', (int) 7 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 8 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 9 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 10 => 'the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act', (int) 11 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 12 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 13 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 14 => 'the Payment of Gratuity Act', (int) 15 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1972', (int) 1 => '1956', (int) 2 => '1972', (int) 3 => '1972', (int) 4 => 'the year 1993', (int) 5 => '12.4.2007', (int) 6 => '30th of June, 2007', (int) 7 => '1st of July, 2007', (int) 8 => '30th of June, 2007', (int) 9 => '7.8.2013', (int) 10 => '1972', (int) 11 => '7th of Sept., 2007', (int) 12 => '30.6.2007', (int) 13 => 'more than 14 years', (int) 14 => 'six months'' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rajasthan', (int) 1 => 'Jaipur', (int) 2 => 'Bhilwara', (int) 3 => 'Mumbai', (int) 4 => 'Jaipur' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '9%' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1100192', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-11-27', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.</p><p> </p></p>ORDER<p><p> S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12789/2013 Shree Rajasthan Syntex LTD.versus The Appellate Authority, Payment for Gratuity Act 1972 & ORS.Date of order : 27.11.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.Sanjeev Johari for petitioner.</p><p> BY THE COURT:- The petitioner, which is a company, registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition while challenging the order dated 7.8.2013 (Annex.P/14) passed by the appellate authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the order dated 21.10.2011 (Annex.P/10) passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.</p><p> Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3, Sandeep Bhatnagar was initially appointed on the post of Sales Assistant with the petitioner-company in the year 1993.</p><p> The 2 respondent No.3 was thereafter promoted on the post of Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995 and on the post of Sales Officer w.e.f.1.8.2001 and was posted from head office Udaipur to Bhilwara office.</p><p> The petitioner company thereafter promoted the respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) vide order dated 8.4.2006.</p><p> The respondent No.3 thereafter was promoted as Dy.</p><p> Manager (Marketing) and he was transferred from Bhilwara to Mumbai w.e.f.1.5.2006.</p><p> On 12.4.2007, the respondent No.3 while working on the post of Dy.</p><p> Manager (Marketing).submitted his resignation and requested the petitioner-company to relieve him before 30th of June, 2007.</p><p> On 1st of July, 2007, the respondent No.3 handed over charge to one Shri Anil Jain and informed the petitioner-company through FAX and left the job of the company.</p><p> When the petitioner-company did not pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent No.3 payable upto 30th of June, 2007, the respondent No.3 moved an application before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act Act, Udaipur 3 and has raised a claim for payment of gratuity.</p><p> The claim of the respondent No.3 was contested by the petitioner-company, however, the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act passed an order dated 21.10.2011 and accepted the claim of the respondent No.3 and directed the petitioner-company to deposit gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.88,846/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.7.2007.</p><p> Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner-company preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Jaipur.</p><p> The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.8.2013.</p><p> Being aggrieved with the aforesaid ordeRs.the petitioner-company has preferred this writ petition.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in passing the impugned orders because as per the 4 provisions of Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee, whose services have been terminated for disorderly conduct, is not entitled for payment of gratuity and the gratuity payable to such employee is liable to be forfeited.</p><p> It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-company that as the respondent No.3 was indulged in disorderly conduct, hence, he is not entitled for the gratuity amount.</p><p> The learned counsel for the petitioner-company has further submitted that before abandoning the job, the respondent No.3 did not give any notice to the petitioner- company as per the terms and conditions of the contract and despite repeated reminders by the petitioner-company, the respondent No.3 did not join his duties, hence, the said conduct of the petitioner comes within the definition of disorderly conduct.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner-company has further argued that both the authorities have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and have illegally passed the impugned ordeRs.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner- 5 company and perused the impugned ordeRs.It is not in dispute that the respondent No.3 has resigned from the services of petitioner-company on 12.4.2007 w.e.f.30.6.2007.</p><p> It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.3 did not execute the renewed contract service with the petitioner-company.</p><p> The petitioner-company issued a charge sheet against the respondent No.3 for continued absence from duty vide letter dated 7th of Sept., 2007, but it is not in dispute that prior to that, the respondent No.3 had resigned from the service on 12.4.2007 and left the job on 30.6.2007.</p><p> It is also not borne out from the material placed on record that the petitioner- company conducted a full fledged enquiry in respect of the charge sheet issued by it to the respondent No.3.</p><p> The controlling authority as well as appellate authority have taken into consideration all these aspects and thereafter passed the impugned ordeRs.It is observed that the respondent No.3 served with the petitioner-company for more than 14 years and he resigned from the petitioner- 6 company on 12.4.2007 w.e.f.30.6.2007 because the agreed allowances were not paid to him by the petitioner-company.</p><p> As the respondent No.3 has not signed the renewed contract, he was not required to serve six months' notice on the petitioner-company before quiting his job.</p><p> Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.</p><p> The same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> [VIJAY BISHNOI].,J.</p><p> Babulal/ 53', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The Appellate Authority and ors', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1100192' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 4' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '27.11.2013', (int) 2 => '7.8.2013', (int) 3 => '21.10.2011', (int) 4 => 'No.3', (int) 5 => '2', (int) 6 => 'No.3', (int) 7 => 'No.3', (int) 8 => '8.4.2006', (int) 9 => 'No.3', (int) 10 => 'No.3', (int) 11 => 'No.3', (int) 12 => 'one', (int) 13 => 'No.3', (int) 14 => 'No.3', (int) 15 => '3', (int) 16 => 'No.3', (int) 17 => '21.10.2011', (int) 18 => 'No.3', (int) 19 => '1.7.2007', (int) 20 => '21.10.2011', (int) 21 => '4', (int) 22 => '6', (int) 23 => 'No.3', (int) 24 => 'No.3', (int) 25 => 'No.3', (int) 26 => '5', (int) 27 => 'No.3', (int) 28 => '12.4.2007', (int) 29 => 'No.3', (int) 30 => 'No.3', (int) 31 => 'No.3', (int) 32 => '12.4.2007', (int) 33 => 'No.3', (int) 34 => 'No.3', (int) 35 => '6', (int) 36 => '12.4.2007', (int) 37 => 'No.3', (int) 38 => '53' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'JUDICATURE', (int) 1 => 'RAJASTHAN', (int) 2 => 'Sanjeev Johari', (int) 3 => 'Sandeep Bhatnagar', (int) 4 => 'Udaipur', (int) 5 => 'Bhilwara' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'The Appellate Authority', (int) 1 => 'COURT:-', (int) 2 => 'Annex', (int) 3 => 'Annex', (int) 4 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 5 => 'Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995', (int) 6 => 'FAX', (int) 7 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 8 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 9 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 10 => 'the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act', (int) 11 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 12 => 'the Controlling Authority', (int) 13 => 'the Appellate Authority', (int) 14 => 'the Payment of Gratuity Act', (int) 15 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1972', (int) 1 => '1956', (int) 2 => '1972', (int) 3 => '1972', (int) 4 => 'the year 1993', (int) 5 => '12.4.2007', (int) 6 => '30th of June, 2007', (int) 7 => '1st of July, 2007', (int) 8 => '30th of June, 2007', (int) 9 => '7.8.2013', (int) 10 => '1972', (int) 11 => '7th of Sept., 2007', (int) 12 => '30.6.2007', (int) 13 => 'more than 14 years', (int) 14 => 'six months'' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Rajasthan', (int) 1 => 'Jaipur', (int) 2 => 'Bhilwara', (int) 3 => 'Mumbai', (int) 4 => 'Jaipur' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '9%' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1100192', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. the Appellate Authority and ors', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-11-27', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.</p><p> </p></p>ORDER<p><p> S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12789/2013 Shree Rajasthan Syntex LTD.versus The Appellate Authority, Payment for Gratuity Act 1972 & ORS.Date of order : 27.11.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.Sanjeev Johari for petitioner.</p><p> BY THE COURT:- The petitioner, which is a company, registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition while challenging the order dated 7.8.2013 (Annex.P/14) passed by the appellate authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the order dated 21.10.2011 (Annex.P/10) passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.</p><p> Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3, Sandeep Bhatnagar was initially appointed on the post of Sales Assistant with the petitioner-company in the year 1993.</p><p> The 2 respondent No.3 was thereafter promoted on the post of Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995 and on the post of Sales Officer w.e.f.1.8.2001 and was posted from head office Udaipur to Bhilwara office.</p><p> The petitioner company thereafter promoted the respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) vide order dated 8.4.2006.</p><p> The respondent No.3 thereafter was promoted as Dy.</p><p> Manager (Marketing) and he was transferred from Bhilwara to Mumbai w.e.f.1.5.2006.</p><p> On 12.4.2007, the respondent No.3 while working on the post of Dy.</p><p> Manager (Marketing).submitted his resignation and requested the petitioner-company to relieve him before 30th of June, 2007.</p><p> On 1st of July, 2007, the respondent No.3 handed over charge to one Shri Anil Jain and informed the petitioner-company through FAX and left the job of the company.</p><p> When the petitioner-company did not pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent No.3 payable upto 30th of June, 2007, the respondent No.3 moved an application before the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act Act, Udaipur 3 and has raised a claim for payment of gratuity.</p><p> The claim of the respondent No.3 was contested by the petitioner-company, however, the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act passed an order dated 21.10.2011 and accepted the claim of the respondent No.3 and directed the petitioner-company to deposit gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.88,846/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.7.2007.</p><p> Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, the petitioner-company preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Jaipur.</p><p> The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.8.2013.</p><p> Being aggrieved with the aforesaid ordeRs.the petitioner-company has preferred this writ petition.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in passing the impugned orders because as per the 4 provisions of Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee, whose services have been terminated for disorderly conduct, is not entitled for payment of gratuity and the gratuity payable to such employee is liable to be forfeited.</p><p> It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-company that as the respondent No.3 was indulged in disorderly conduct, hence, he is not entitled for the gratuity amount.</p><p> The learned counsel for the petitioner-company has further submitted that before abandoning the job, the respondent No.3 did not give any notice to the petitioner- company as per the terms and conditions of the contract and despite repeated reminders by the petitioner-company, the respondent No.3 did not join his duties, hence, the said conduct of the petitioner comes within the definition of disorderly conduct.</p><p> Learned counsel for the petitioner-company has further argued that both the authorities have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and have illegally passed the impugned ordeRs.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner- 5 company and perused the impugned ordeRs.It is not in dispute that the respondent No.3 has resigned from the services of petitioner-company on 12.4.2007 w.e.f.30.6.2007.</p><p> It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.3 did not execute the renewed contract service with the petitioner-company.</p><p> The petitioner-company issued a charge sheet against the respondent No.3 for continued absence from duty vide letter dated 7th of Sept., 2007, but it is not in dispute that prior to that, the respondent No.3 had resigned from the service on 12.4.2007 and left the job on 30.6.2007.</p><p> It is also not borne out from the material placed on record that the petitioner- company conducted a full fledged enquiry in respect of the charge sheet issued by it to the respondent No.3.</p><p> The controlling authority as well as appellate authority have taken into consideration all these aspects and thereafter passed the impugned ordeRs.It is observed that the respondent No.3 served with the petitioner-company for more than 14 years and he resigned from the petitioner- 6 company on 12.4.2007 w.e.f.30.6.2007 because the agreed allowances were not paid to him by the petitioner-company.</p><p> As the respondent No.3 has not signed the renewed contract, he was not required to serve six months' notice on the petitioner-company before quiting his job.</p><p> Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.</p><p> The same is hereby dismissed.</p><p> [VIJAY BISHNOI].,J.</p><p> Babulal/ 53', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The Appellate Authority and ors', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1100192' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 4
CARDINAL: 1, 27.11.2013, 7.8.2013, 21.10.2011, No.3, 2, No.3, No.3, 8.4.2006, No.3, No.3, No.3, one, No.3, No.3, 3, No.3, 21.10.2011, No.3, 1.7.2007, 21.10.2011, 4, 6, No.3, No.3, No.3, 5, No.3, 12.4.2007, No.3, No.3, No.3, 12.4.2007, No.3, No.3, 6, 12.4.2007, No.3, 53
PERSON: JUDICATURE, RAJASTHAN, Sanjeev Johari, Sandeep Bhatnagar, Udaipur, Bhilwara
ORG: The Appellate Authority, COURT:-, Annex, Annex, the Controlling Authority, Sales Accountant w.e.f.1.3.1995, FAX, the Controlling Authority, the Controlling Authority, the Controlling Authority, the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, the Appellate Authority, the Controlling Authority, the Appellate Authority, the Payment of Gratuity Act, Court
DATE: 1972, 1956, 1972, 1972, the year 1993, 12.4.2007, 30th of June, 2007, 1st of July, 2007, 30th of June, 2007, 7.8.2013, 1972, 7th of Sept., 2007, 30.6.2007, more than 14 years, six months'
GPE: Rajasthan, Jaipur, Bhilwara, Mumbai, Jaipur
PERCENT: 9%