Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1975]101ITR292(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. The petitioner before us is the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and the petitioner will hereinafter be referred to as 'the company' for the sake of brevity. The 1st respondent is the Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle I(2), Bombay, concerned with the 'assessment of the company and will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Income-tax Officer' for the sake of brevity. The 2nd respondent is the Union of India. 2. Before adverting to the respective contentions it will be necessary to set out briefly the facts which are not in dispute. The company has its registered office in Bombay and has in its employment about 56,000 employees. It is the agreed position that the company keeps its accounts on the mercantile system of accounting. The accounting year of the company is the financial year. Up to and including the assessment year 1971-72, the company had claimed and was granted deduction in respect of its liability for gratuity to its employees on the basis of actual payments made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)95CTR(Bom)168; [1991]192ITR239(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability of the assessee in the matter of payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, of Rs. 5,34,000 is an allowable revenue expenditure in the assessment of the assessee for the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee is a company. The assessment year involved is 1973-74 for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1972. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, came into force some time in October, 1972. According to the assessee, it became liable to pay gratuity to its employees under the statute for the first time during the previous year. It made a provision of Rs. 8,65,000 in respect of its gratuity liability. The break-up of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR79; [2004(102)FLR1160]; (2004)IIILLJ862Bom; 2004(3)MhLj572
A.S. Oka, J.1. This Court had already issued notice for final disposal at admission stage. Rule. The respondent No. 2 waives service. Service of Rule on respondent No. 1 is dispensed with, as respondent No. 1 is a formal party. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was forthwith taken up for final hearing. I have heard the counsel appearing for parties at length.2. The short question involved in this petition is whether the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1963') are applicable to an appeal preferred under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.3. Before considering the facts of the case, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1972'). Section 7(7) of the said Act reads thus :7(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under Sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the order, p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR718; 2001(4)BomCR103; [2001(89)FLR1015]; (2001)IILLJ273Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. In this petition the petitioner employers of the school teachers are denying the claim of gratuity to their retired teachers on the ground that they were not 'the employees' as defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as they were not doing 'any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work .......'2. There is no dispute over the facts. The petitioners are a recognised unaided primary/secondary School established in the year 1963 and managed by the Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is an admitted fact that the respondents school teachers were in employment of the school as shown below:(i) Smt. Sudha Desai June 14, 1971 to March 20, 1997 (ii) Smt. Shanta Ranganathan November 12, 1979 to February 27, 1997 (iii) Smt. Aleyammo John June June 9, 1969 to May 31, 1997 (iv) Shri B.M. Deshpande January 28, 1975 to December 20, 1998 3. There is also no dispute that their services were meritorious an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(1)ALLMR3; 2004(3)BomCR333; (2004)ILLJ885Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the Petitioner claims that his retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity be computed, taking into account the service rendered by him with the Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow from July 27, 1953 to November 17, 1965 and for setting aside the order of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 levying penal rent on the Petitioner and recovering it from the gratuity payable by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Petitioner has also sought a writ striking down the Rule imposing ceiling on the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner as also for a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay to him pro-rata pension for the service rendered by him with the erstwhile employer.2. The Petitioner was initially employed with the Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow as an Assistant Agricultural Engineer from July 27, 1963. He resigned on November 17, 1965 and immediately on then next day, joined the services of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(1)KarLJ211; 2008(1)SLJ173(NULL)
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. The orders at Annexures-H and J are called in question in this writ petition.Respondent No. 3 was working as Secretary in petitioner Bank during the period 1.1.1961 to 18.10.76. While he was working as Secretary, he misappropriated certain sums of money belonging to the society. Then the petitioner society instituted proceedings under Section 69 of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies against the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies passed the order dated:30/1/88 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,969.69 paise with future interest on principle amount. The said order is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 29.12.89 in Appeal No. 353/88. The order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 20476/1991(disposed of on 26th May 1997). In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner-bank filed Execution Petition in E.P. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR1125; 2010(1)KarLJ234; (2010)ILLJ313Kant:2009(4)KCCRSN297:2009(4)AIRKarR379.
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The first petitioner is the widow of A.Y. Nayak, an Employee of first respondent-Bank and the second petitioner is their son. A.Y. Nayak died in harness on 9.8.1997. In this case, petitioners have questioned the validity of the order at Annexure 'A', dated 24.4.2003, whereby the representation filed by them seeking grant of monetary benefits and family pension to the first petitioner has been rejected by the Bank.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:A.Y. Nayak was working as a Branch Manager, Bhartan Bazaar Branch, Moradabad, of the respondent-Bank in the year 1984-85. While he was working as such, a charge memo dated 25.8.1986 was served on him accusing him of violating Regulation 3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officers Employees (Conduct Regulation) 1976 read with Section 24 of the Regulations. He filed the reply denying the allegations contained in the charge memo. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the deli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003(97)FLR210]; 2003(4)KarLJ321
Kumar Rajaratnam 1. Writ Appeal Nos. 3602 of 1997 and 4960 of 1999 have been filed by the Union of India aggrieved by the payment of gratuity to the employees who had resigned from service on the ground that as per Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, resignation from service unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service. Since both the writ petitions raise common question of law, they have been taken up together and a common order is passed in these writ appeals.2. The writ petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 3602 of 1997 was an Ex-Military Pensioner appointed in the Controllerate of Quality Assurance, Bangalore on 23-8-1982 and submitted his resignation on 12-12-1990 which was accepted by the Management on 31-5-1990. He had rendered seven years and nine months of service in the said post.3. The petitioner in the Writ Appeal No. 4960 of 1999 was appointed as Office Assistant in Telecom Depa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR863]; (2008)IILLJ737Kant; 2007(4)KCCRSN301
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, since the area of dispute appeared to be in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal was heard for final disposal.2. The appellants (for short, referred to as 'the employees') were the employees of respondent-1 (for short, referred to as 'the employer'). The respondent-establishment was engaged in the manufacture of cotton and polyester yarn, being one of the units of National Textile Corporation, a Government of India undertaking. The employer had announced Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 1996, in furtherance of which about 250 employees including the appellants exercised the option, which was accepted, and they were relieved from service, by paying terminal benefits.3. The appellants have subsequently filed separate applications for directions, in Form 'N' under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, (for short, re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1984)ILLJ96AP
1. Identical issues are involved in all these three writ petitions. W.P. No. 3785 of 1981 is a petition for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Rajahmundry made in Case No. 19 of 1981, dated 21st May, 1981. W.P. Nos. 1676 and 1677 of 1981 are for issue of writ calling for records in P.G. Appeal Nos. 11 and 15 of 1980 on the file of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Eluru and quash dated 23rd September, 1980 and 28th September, 1980 therein. 2. The facts stated in support of the Writ Petition No. 3785 of 1981 may be considered and the facts and allegations in the other writ petitions are similar. The petitioner is a company established at Agarpura, 24 Parganas in the State of West Bengal and has branches at Guntur and Bikkavole in Andhra Pradesh. The 1st respondent and others, who were daily-rated seasonal workmen in Biccavole factory, which was closed down in 1974, presented an app...
Tag this Judgment!