Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR428; (1999)IILLJ93Bom
A.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard both the learned counsel; Mr. Bharucha for the petitioner and Mr. Vashi for Respondent Nos. 9, 11, 17, 21 and 22.2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is by the employer Air India Limited challenging the two orders viz. (i) Order dated November 30, 1994 passed by the Controlling Authority-Respondent No. 2, and (ii) the order dated June 30, 1995 passed by the appellate authority Respondent No. 1 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, 'Gratuity Act'). There were separate orders passed by respondent No. 2 Controlling Authority though the issues involved were identical. Under the said orders, the respondents Nos. 3 to 26 employees were held eligible to recover the amount of their gratuity payable in accordance with the provisions of the Gratuity Act, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said amount payable from different dates till the date of payment. The appellate authority has confirmed the findings re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(4)ALLMR297; 2004(5)BomCR10; [2005(104)FLR1009]; (2005)IILLJ104Bom; 2005(1)MhLj497; 2005(1)SLJ485(Bombay)
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Topkar waives service for Respondent No. 1 Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 need not be served being formal parties. By consent, Rule called out and heard.2. This Petition has been filed against the order dated 30th March 2002 passed by the Controlling Authority, Kolhapur in Application (PGA) No. 19 of 2000 allowing the application filed by Respondent No. 1 and the order dated 9th October 2003 of the Appellate Authority, Pune in Appeal (PGA) No. 2 of 2003 dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner.3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:On 19th October 1966 Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was employed with the Petitioner Undertaking and he was superannuated on 1st December 1999. As his gratuity was not paid, respondent No. 1 filed and application before the controlling Authority on 14th August 2000 claiming gratuity of Rs. 2,71,656/- for 33 years of service. The claim was made on the basis of the monthly wage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR358; 2007(5)BomCR654; (2007)109BOMLR1731; [2007(115)FLR761]; (2008)ILLJ775Bom; 2007(6)MhLj393
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Admit. Shri K.R. Belosey waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent, heard forthwith.2. The short point for consideration which arises in the matter is whether the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' can entertain the appeal beyond 120 days from the date of receipt of the order.3. Some of the workmen of the appellant filed applications before the controlling authority claiming difference in the amount of gratuity paid and the one claimed as payable to them. The said applications were dismissed by the controlling authority which was sought to be challenged by way of an appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and the workmen approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 742 of 2002. The High Court set aside the order of the controlling authority and the Appellate Authority and directed the controlling authority to reconsider the matter on merits, allowing the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR194; 2006(4)KarLJ265; (2007)IIILLJ278Kant
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cotton and polyester yarn, is one of the units of National Textile Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking. In November, 1996, the petitioner had announced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the VRS' for brevity) for its employees. About 250 workmen, including respondents Nos. 2 to 26 opted for the Scheme. They were given all the assured benefits and retired from service.2. The said respondents Nos. 2 to 26 were all engaged as trainees, in the first instance and some were taken on Badli workmen Rolls, later and some were either confirmed or promoted or not at all. Some were even confirmed as permanent employees from trainee as detailed in the body of the petition.3. After a lapse of 30 months from the date of opting the VRS and having availed of all benefits without demur, had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR185]; ILR2006KAR4263; 2007(1)KarLJ327
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner was employed with the 3rd respondent-Bank as its Deputy General Manager. He had retired from his services on 12.11.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. He made an application before the 2nd respondent for payment of gratuity amount due to him under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, (for short 'the Act') and the Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973. The 2nd respondent by its order dated 8.3.2002 dismissed the application holding that the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, does not apply to the employees of the 3rd respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal holding that there is no necessity for modification or setting aside the order dated 8.3.2002 of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner along with certain other similarly situated employees of the 3rd respondent, filed writ petitions before this Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR121]; ILR2008KAR1819; 2008(1)KarLJ695; (2008)ILLJ943Kant; ILR2008(2)Kar1819; 2008(1)KLJ695; 2008(1)KCCR241; 2008(1)AIRKarR441; 2008-I-LLJ943; 2008LabIC(NOC)339(Kar)(DB)
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. As the dispute between the parties lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, the appeal is heard for final disposal.2. Brief facts of the case necessary for consideration and disposal of this appeal are:(i) The appellant is a Company engaged in paints and varnishes Industry. The 2nd respondent was employed as sales representative by the appellant on 1.7.1985. He has resigned from service of the appellant with effect from 1.4.1996. Thereafter he was paid an amount of Rs. 2,128.50 as gratuity, as per the scheme of the appellant 2nd respondent being dissatisfied with the said payment, had filed an application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') in Form N, before the Controlling Authority to determine the amount of gratuity payable to him. In the annexure to the said application, the appellant has stated that the post held by him was 'sales representative' and he had put ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ311; (2008)ILLJ122Kant; 2007(5)KLJ311; 2007(3)KCCR2027; 2007(5)AIRKarR331
ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. These petitions are taken up for consideration together, since the issues involved are identical.2. In the first of the petitions, the Trustees who manage the Sri Venkataramana Temple & Hale Mariyamma Temple, Kapu, Udupi District are the petitioners on behalf of the two temples. The challenge is to an order by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority, (under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Mangalore, as well as an Order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hassan Region, Hassan, dismissing the appeal against the order of the former.3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the temples are managed by the Goudasaraswatha Brahmin community, a religious denomination. And that the State has no control over the administration of these temples as there are no statutory provisions applicable to them.4. It is stated that the third respondent was an erstwhile manager employed by the petitioners and that he had resigned from his job in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (2002)IIILLJ616AP
J. Chalmaeswar, J.1. Respondents Nos. 3 to 15 herein filed an application under Section 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the second respondent herein claiming certain amounts towards gratuity payable by the said applicants on account of closure of an establishment known as Warangal District Co- operative Marketing Society Limited. The said establishment was admittedly closed on October 1, 1987. The second respondent on consideration of the material before him allowed the claim of respondents Nos. 2 to 15 herein by two separate orders dated August 17, 1990, and October 1, 1990, respectively in different applications filed by respondents No. 2 to 15 herein. The further details of which may not be necessary.2. Aggrieved by the decision of the second respondent, the petitioner herein preferred appeals to the first respondent herein under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Though it is not clear from the record as to the date of the presentation of the above menti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 140(2007)DLT167; 2007(95)DRJ90; [2007(114)FLR1007]; (2007)IIILLJ103Del
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner workman, being aggrieved by the order dated 27th June, 1996 passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the order dated 18th February, 1994 passed by the Controlling Authority to the effect that respondent No. 2 herein was not covered/ coverable under the Payment of Gratuity Act and as such the petitioner employee (appellant therein) was not entitled to claim any gratuity, was approved and confirmed.2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as a tailor with the management of M/s. Jagdish Sons, respondent No. 2 herein, in February, 1962. The petitioner resigned from service w.e.f. 4th July, 1988 after working for 26 years with the respondent No. 2. On not being paid any gratuity, the petitioner approached the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2008)2GLR1163
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for petitioners, Mr. Sunit S. Shah, learned GP with Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Ms. Kiran Pandey and Mr. KJ Dwivedi, learned AGPs for the respondent State authority and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Advocate for respondent Baroda Municipal Corporation.2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitions involving same and identical question filed by the concerned employees of the respondent corporation but same have not been notified because of the office objections raised by the Registry and he requested before this Court to call for papers of those petitions and accordingly, considering his request, registry of this Court was directed to dispense with the office objections raised by the registry and to send papers of those petitions and therefore, registry has sent papers of Special Civil Application No. 327, 328, 330,331,332,333,334, 336,...
Tag this Judgment!