Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1996]219ITR684(Mad)
The Court1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the entire gratuity provision of Rs. 24,05,655 should be allowed as a deduction while computing the total income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?' 2. The assessee is a textile mill. For the asst. yr. 1974-75 the accounting year ended on 31st March, 1974. The assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, had come into force in September, 1972. But the assessee made no provision in its accounts for the financial year ended 31st March, 1973, relevant to the asst. yr. 1973-74. The assessee thereafter for the financial year ended 31st March, 1974, relevant to the asst. yr. 1974-75, made a provision for gratuity for its workers in its acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ502Mad
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. This batch of writ petitions involves identical questions of law and the learned counsel on either side also made submissions in common, and therefore, requires to be considered together.2. To appreciate the issues raised, the relevant facts in one of the writ petitions should be referred to W. P. No. 6964 of 1993 has been filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the second respondent from proceeding further in PGIA No. 10 of 1993, the application filed by the first respondent claiming benefits under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the rules made thereunder.3. The writ petitioner-Company claims that it is carrying on business in the manufacture and sales of beedies, that the beedi and cigar workers are governed by the Beedi and Cigar (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 and that the conditions of employment of beedi workers are of various types and most of them are home workers. It is also claimed that the Payment of Gratui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ104Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is for quashing the order of the first respondent dated October 20, 1986 in P.G. Nos. 5 to 9 of 1986 and to direct the second respondent to pay the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioners.2. The case of the petitioners is that originally they including the deceased V. Pitchai (3rd Petitioner) retired from service from Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mill Limited (Now under Liquidation). They have been working continuously without any interruption. Hence they were entitled for gratuity. The third respondent paid the amounts based on their arbitrary and illegal a calculations. Taking advantage of their superior and dominating position subsequently, the Labour Union Leaders advised them that the payment of gratuity was not in conformity with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Management deleted certain years of service in total years of service on the ground that they did not work for 240 days in those years. Hence the petitioners filed claim peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(2)BomCR747; [1984(48)FLR322]; (1984)ILLJ448Bom
Pendse, J.1. The question whether the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would apply to the Field Workers employed by the General Insurance Companies, and if so, whether such Field Workers are employees within the meaning of S. 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, falls for consideration in these three petitions. As the questions involved in the three petitions are identical, we propose to dispose of these petitions by common judgment and we will set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 2290 of 1982 to appreciate the submissions advanced at the bar.2. Respondent No. 1 H. K. Khatau in Writ Petition No. 2290 of 1982 was originally employed by Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. on 15th February, 1965 on the Development side. The Development staff consisted of Field Officers and Field Workers, and their services were regulated by the Code of Conduct issued by the Company. The main functions of the Field Workers were (a) to recruit, train or direct and/or control the agency and/or f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)91BOMLR895; [1990(60)FLR417]; (1990)IILLJ220Bom
1. The petitioners, the Bombay Gas Public Limited Company, challenge in this writ petition an order dated 4th November, 1987 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, granting to the 1st respondent gratuity with interest as set out in that order.2. The 1st respondent joined the services of the petitioner is June 1950. He worked as a fitter upto 29th July, 1981 when the employees of the petitioners went on a flash strike. This strike was declared as an illegal strike under Section 25, subsection (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by the Labour Court under its order dated 24th August 1981. Thereafter the Company has not carried on any business. It declared a closure on 26th December, 1983. The dispute in connection with the closure is still pending in Court.3. According to the 1st respondent he attained the age of superannuation on 17th March 1987. He filed on application on 8th April 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(2)BomCR291
R.S. Bhonsale, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the impugned order passed by Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent employee Sewaram Popatmal Asanani and substituting an amount of Rs. 1776/- in place of an amount of Rs. 226/- as amount of gratuity due and payable to the respondent employee. The facts of this petition which lie in a narrow compass can be stated briefly as follows :--2. The respondent employee has been employed with the petitioner company in the capacity of a Mistry and had joined the services on 19th May, 1954. After the completion of 20 years of continuous service, he willingly resigned on January 8, 1974. It is not disputed before us that the last drawn wages of the respondent employee were Rs. 310.18 per month. Respondent employee made an application to the petitioner company on 17-1-1974 for payment of gratuity amount only for the period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR1031; [2002(92)FLR689]; 2002(1)MhLj518
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The decision taken by the respondents to withhold the gratuity payable to the petitioner on his superannuation in view of criminal case pending against the petitioner has led the petitioner to approach this Court for quashing the said decision of the respondents and for direction to them to pay the gratuity amount due to the petitioner along with interest.2. The petitioner joined the service of erstwhile Fertilizers Corporation of India Limited in the year 1958 as Lower Division Clerk and on formation of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'RCF Ltd.'), petitioner's services were transferred to the newly formed Company. The petitioner was promoted from time to time and was ultimately superannuated on 28th February 1994. The petitioner thus has put in a continuous service of more than thirty five years. Upon superannuation, the petitioner did receive his legal dues but the gratuity amount due and payable to the petitioner was not paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)ILLJ619Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith in view of the nature of the Petitions which are being disposed of at this stage itself.2. The Petitioners, the Head Mistress of Fatimadevi English High School and the Trustees and the Secretary of Lucy Education Society, are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeals filed by the respondent-Teachers against the Order dated December 29, 2000 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act.3. The respondent-Teachers having put in total service of 39 years, 38 years and 34 years respectively in the School, stood superannuated on May 5, 1997, January 31, 1998 and September 20, 1999 respectively. According to them, they were entitled to get gratuity but on failure of the Petitioners to pay they approached the Controlling Authority for the purpose of getting gratuity. It appears that the Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2009)IILLJ458Bom
R.V. More, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.2. The Appeal takes exception to the order dated November 2, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1946/2007 dismissing the petitioner's Petition thereby confirming the order dated August 9, 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal PGA No. CA/YDN/03/2007.3. By the order dated October 5, 2006 the controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 passed an order thereby directing the petitioner Company to pay respondent No. 2 an amount of Rs. 13,75,000/-by way and as a gratuity. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority by filing an Appeal on December 13, 2006. However, the petitioner deposited the amount of gratuity with the Appellate Authority on March 12, 2007. Respondent No. 2 raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : [2006(109)FLR759]; (2006)IILLJ872CG; 2006(2)MPHT43(CG)
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.1. A short but important question arises for consideration in this writ petition as to whether a principal of the aided non-Government Educational Institution is an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity can be extended to him or not ?2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Administrator and petitioner No. 2 is the Principal, Lahidhi Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Chirimiri, Distt. Korea (C.G.). This is a non- Governmental aided Higher Secondary School. The case of the petitioners is that late Roopnarayan Chaturvedi was appointed in this institution on 20-7-1966. He died during service on 21-9-2001. His wife namely Smt. Vidyavati Chaturvedi, respondent No. 1 herein, made an application for payment of Gratuity before the management of the institution but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, she moved to the Controlling Authority under the Payment of...
Tag this Judgment!