• When the management of a mill is taken over by a Corporation, it will be treated 's an employer and liability for payment of gratuity to the employees of the Mill will be fastened upon the Corporation.
National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Ltd. v. Bhagirath Gopal Martal, 1991 LLR 198: 1992-II'LLJ 111 (Born HC).
• Payment of gratuity to an employee working in an establishment for 22 days in I month will be calculated @ 26 days a month.
May and Baker (l) Ltd. Bombay v. J.S. Continho, National Union of Commercial Employees, (1994) III LLJ (Supp) 630: 1991 LLR 375 (Born HC).
• Condonation of Delay in a claim for gratuity not preferred within the prescribed ime - Application filed after three years of the expiry of the retirement - The )etitioner having put in 40 years of service - Made representations for payment of ;ratuity which was not replied by the Management. The delay has been rightly :ondoned by the Controlling and Appellate authority. The High Court will not nterfere in this matter.
Taxmaco Ltd. v. Shri Ram Dhan, (1993) 1 LLN 129: (1992) 2 CLR 256: (1993) III LLJ (Supp) 208: 1992 LLR 369: 1992(65) FLR 742 (Del HC).
, In order to be eligible for gratuity, a person must have rendered continuous :ervice of 5 years. Merely that a person who is offered work whenever available vill not be sufficient for claiming gratuity.
Velukully Achary v. Harrisons Malyalam Ltd., (1993) III LLJ (Supp) 118: 1993 LLR 20 (Ker HC).
• Making of demand by the employee upon the employer is not a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction by the Controlling Authority to entertain the application by an employee for payment of gratuity.
Kataraja Pillai, Proprietor, Shanker Match Industries, Eruva v. The Appellate Authority of Payment of Gratuity Act, Kollam, 1993 LLR 410 (Ker HC).
• Period of five years of service is the minimum condition for entitlement of gratuity.
1. Bakshish Singh v. Mis. Darshan Engineering Works, AIR 1994 SC 251: (1994) 1 SCC 9: 1994 LLR 61: 1994-1 LL) 197 (SC).
2. N.S. Krishna v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., 1995 LLR 1031: 1995(71) FLR480 (Del HC).
• A trainee, other than apprentice, will also be an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneshwar v. The Controlling Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Assistant !..J:lbour Commissioner, 1994 LLR 789: 1995-11 LLN 1130 (Ori HC).
• Misappropriated amount by an employee can be adjusted against his gratuity payable under the Act.
Sri Jagannath BaTik v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board, 1995 LLR 832 (Ori He). • Re-employment of the employees after clearance of their dues will not amount to 'continuous service' to be eligible for payment of gratuity.
Dungerbhai Meghanbhai v. Arbude Mills Ltd., 1996 LIC 262: (1996) 1 CLR 149: 1996 LLR 409 (Guj HC).
• Gratuity to an employee cannot be attached by the court.
G. Narayana Rao v. V.R. Naginani, (1996) 74 FLR 2640: 1997 LIC 902: (1996) Kant 3246: 1996 LLR 1123 (Kar HC).
• Amendment to Payment of Gratuity Act will not be with retrospective effect.
Wimco Ltd. v. The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (1997) II LL) 15: (1997) 2 CLR 142: (1997) 1 LLN 959: 1997 LLR 516 (Kar HC).
• Food allowance to hotel employees will form part of wages while calculating gratuity? Yes.
Management Hotel Hariniwas v. Thiru Copalan Nair, 1997 LLR 633 (Mad He).
• Only employees and not the employer can invoke the provisions of the Act.
Reveendranatha Prabhu v. Rajappan, (1997) 77 FLR 39: (1997) 4 LLN 769: 1997 LLR 845 (Ker HC).
• When a claim of gratuity is based on a settlement and not under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the application for recovery can be made uncier section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Karsan Meghji Dabhi, (2000) III LL) (Supp) 1174: 1997-11 CLR 775 (Guj HC).
• From the said evidence coupled with the definition of Ucontinuous service" occurring in section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972, the Controlling Authority cannot be said to have erred in reaching the finding that there was no break in the service of the employee and the employee was able to establish that he was in continuous service.
Ramchandra Ganpat Dalvi v. Phoenix Mills Ltd., (1997) 77 FLR 246: 1997 LLR 958 (Born HC).
• Gujarat State Labour Welfare Board will be covered by the Act.
Jayaben Suaryakant Modi v. Welfare Commissioner of Gujaraf Welfare Board, (1997) 1 LLJ 139: (1996) 3 CLR 60: 1997 LIC 2581 (Guj HC).
• A teacher in an unaided institution will also be included in the definition of an 'employee' under the Act.
Premlata Digambar Rna Dca v. Principal. St. Phi/amine's Convent High School, Nasik Road, 1997-11 LL) 1050 (Born HC).
• Gratuity of an employee re-instated with continuity but without back wages cannot be denied.
M. Rama Rao v. Assistant Traffic Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Central Bus Station, Hyderabad, 1998 LLR 724 (AP He).
• Gratuity of an employee for wilful omission causing loss, cannot be withheld.
M, Narasinga Rno v. District Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Vizianagaram by its General1vf.anager, 1998 LLR 850 (AP HC).
• Gratuity of employees must be paid irrespective of financial capacity.
Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Unit Munerwa v. Ram Nain Singh, (1999) 80 FLR 757: (1999) 1 LL] 814: 1999 LLR 41 (All He).
• Non-payment of gratuity to an employee on his retirement due to some lapses furing service will not be justified when there is no termination on that account.
Balaehnndra Krishnaji Kale v. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 1999 LLR 242: 1999 (81) FLR 330 (Kam He).
• An employee will be entitled to gratuity only when he has been in the minterrupted service for certain period.
Ramappa Bhimappa v. Mis. Phoenix Mills Ltd., (1999) 1 CLR 187: (1999) 1 Mah L) 214: (1999) 81 FLR 151: 1999 LLR 323: 1999 (81) FLR 151 (Born HC).
• Payment of gratuity cannot be stayed under sick industrial Companies (Special 'rovisions) Act. It is a settled law that it is not open for the company to take ,heller of section 22 in respect of workers' wages and other dues.
Modistone Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of lJIbour, Mumbai, (1999) 3 LLN 1054: (1999) II LLj 830: 1999 LLR 984: 1999 (83) FLR 233 (Born HC).
, Gratuity to an employee cannot be denied even when he has opted for pension.
Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Aniruddh Fulshankar Shukla, (1999) 3 LLN 1054: (1999) II LL) 830: 1999 LLR 713: 1999(82) FLR 927 (Gu; HC).
, Controlling Authority cannot allow more than the prescribed ceiling.
District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. The Controlling Authority under Payment a/Gratuity Act, (1999) 3 LLN 257: (1999) 2 MPL) 139: (1999) II LL) 1275: 1999 LLR 584 (MP HC).
, Unless an increment is withheld the gratuity will be payable on legally due mount.
Rnjendra Deva v. Addl. Labour Commissioner (Account) Kanpur-cum-Appellate Authority, 1999 LLR 542 (All HC).
Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld on his retirement on the plea that here have been audit objections which were never communicated to such mployees.
)agdish Narain Chopra v. Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1999) 83 FLR 784: 2000 All Lj 762: 2000 LLR 88 (All HC).
• Recovery of gratuity cannot be prohibited or stalled by the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (SICA) Act.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) & Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Allahabad, (2000) 2 LLN 1140, 2000 LLR 366 (All HC).
• A teacher not being a 'workman' ,will not be eligible for gratuity, however, Bombay High Court has held that a teacher who possesses skill will not be deprived of his gratuity under the Act.
Seth Soorajmal Jalan Balika Vidyalaya (Secondary School! v. Controlling Authority, (2001) I LLj 1249, 2001 LLR 567 (Cal HC).
• Budget Speech of Finance Minister will not justify the claim for higher gratuity.
Shit/a Sharan Srivastava v. Government of India, (2001) II LLj 822, 2001 LLR 898 (SC).
• Direction for payment of consequential benefits will not be justified when the concerned employee has given an undertaking that his absence will be considered as continuous service only for payment of gratuity.
Managing Director, Mis. Visvesvaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd., Bhadravathi v. T. Ramachandra, (2002) 2 CLR 233: (2002) 94 FLR 214: (2002) IV LLj (Supp) 114: 2001 LLR (Sum) 640 (Karn HC).
• Even if a workman gives an undertaking for making deductions, the gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld.
Ram Ranjan Mukherjee v. Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd., (2001) I LLj 1020: 2001 LLR 297 (Cal HC).
• A claim for gratuity made after 13 years will not be tenable.
Shivajingappa v. Management of Minerva Mills, Bangalore, (2001) II LLj 451: 2001 LLR 734 (Kam HC).
• Order for payment of gratuity to a Director, not having ultimate control over the affairs of company, will not be interfered.
Monitron Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Muklmdlal Khushalchand Dhavan, (2001) I LLj 924, 2001 LLR 339 (Gu) HC).
• Maximum statutory ceiling for gratuity cannot be reduced by an agreement.
Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd v. Ramprasad, (2001) m LLj 1033: 2001 LLR 918 (MP HC).
• High Court cannot direct the employees to refund the gratuity if they don't vacate the quarters.
Texmaco Ltd. v. Roshan Singh, 2001 LLR 890 (Del HC).
• Starting point for payment of gratuity will be from the time when the employer disputes the liability.
Neelakandan Namboothiri v. State of Kera/a, (2001) II LLj 520, 2001 LLR 516 (Ker HC). • An employee has an option to claim gratuity where it is more beneficial.
E.ID. Parry (I) Ltd. v. G. Omkar Murthy, 2001 LLR 497 (SC).
• Incentive payment of bonus will not be 'wages' for cakulatfon of gratuity.
T.I. Cycles of India, Ambattur v. M.K. Gurumani, 2002 LLR 57 (SC).
• Limitation Act for condonation of delay will not apply when an appeal has been filed against the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act.
Warangal District Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Appellate Authority under Payme1$t:ofGratuity Act, 1972, (2002) 101 FjR 192: (2003) I LLN 976: 2003 LLR 61 (AP HC). ,.
• Principal employer can be directed to pay gratuity to the employees of the contractor.
Madras Fertilisers Ltd. v. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (2003) 1 LLN 358: (2003) 1 CLR 399: 2003 LLR 244: 2003-1 LLJ 1007 (Mad HC).
• Interest on delayed payment of gratuity will be payable by employer when the delay is not because of fault on the part of the employee.
H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (21:100) LIC 273: (2000) 86 FLR 210: (2000) 3 LLN 883: 2003 LLR 354: 2003-1 LLN 805 (SC).
• No doubt the gratuity should be paid to the employee on the termination of his employment, but no specific period within which the amount of gratuity has to be paid is prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but if the delay has been only at the instance of the petitioner which can not be termed as the employer has delayed the payment, no interest will be payable.
D. Prasada Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank, Hyderabad, (2003) 3 LLN 980: (2003) III LLJ 334: 2003 LLR 523: 2003 (97) FLR 97 (AP HC).
• Denial of interest on a late payment of gratuity will not be justified when delay in making claim has been sufficiently explained hence 12% interest will be payable on payment of gratuity.
U. Ratnakar Rao v. Union of India, (2003) 1 CLR 936: (2003) 2 LLN 278: (2003) II LLj 336: 2003 LLR 612: 2003 (97) FLR 462 (Karn HC).
• The definitions of 'appropriate Government' under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act and Payment of Gratuity Act are substantially different than each; other hence in the case of Bharat Pumps & Compressors belonging to Central Government, the appropriate Government will be Central Government and not the State Government.
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. v. Regional L1bour Commissioner (Cenfral) and Appellate Authority under (P.G. Act) Kanpur, (2003) All Lj 1665: (2003) 2 LLN 908: (2003) II CLR 146: 2003 LLR 614: 2003 (97) FLR 221 (All HC).
• Interest will be payable when the employer has not arranged to pay gratuity to the employee within prescribed period.
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority under WG. Act) Kanpur, (2003) All Lj 1665: (2003) 2 LLN 908: (2003) II CLR 146: 2003 LLR 614: 2003 (97) FLR 221 (All HC).
• Gratuity of an employee being well recognized retiral benefit is not a gratuitous payment but earned by him after serving for a long and continuous period.
Y.R. Shenoy v. Syndicate Bank, (2003) II LLj 977: 2003 LLR 615: 2003 (97) FLR 812 (Karn HC).
• When the gratuity of an employee has been deposited in the Court, it must be paid to him since it can not be contended that the Company has been declared sick undertaking and BIFR case is pending.
Bhailal Kalidas Barot v. Factory Manager, Jehangir Textile Mills Ltd" (2003) II LLJ 355: 2003 LLR 616: 2003-JI LLN 283 (Guj HC).
• Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has overriding effect and no other Act or ruies shall have any effect which is inconsistent with its provisions.
Union of India v. M.R. Shivappa, (2003) 3 LLN 522: (2003) 4 Kant Lj 321: 2003 LLR 616: 2003-11 LLj 663 (Karn HC).
• Wages, as defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act, has different definition than that under the ES[ Act, placing reliance by the learned single judge in holding that incentive bonus will form part of wages for calculation of gratuity was misconceived and hence liable to be quashed.
Kirlosknr Brothers Ltd. v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, (2003) III LLj 1035: 2003 LLR 929: 2003 (98) 876 (MP HC).
• Gratuity as payable to an employee is not bounty but a valuable right and its disbursement has to made without any delay.
GujaTat State Road Transport Corporation v. Kiritkumar Ponjala Barot, (2003) III LLJ 1035: 2003 LLR 1069: 2003-III LLN 1047 (Guj He)
• An employee will be entitled to gratuity even for the year when he has not worked for 240 days in view of the amended definition of 'continuous service' whereby the service interrupted on account of sickness, accident etc. is to be included hence the High Court confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority under the Act in allowing gratuity to an employee for the years during which he has not worked for 240 days.
Korakundah Estate, Nilgiris v. Sagunthala, 2004 LLR 222: 2004-1 LL) 99 (Mad HC).
• Mere pendency of criminal case against an employee who has retired from service will not be justifiable ground for an employee to withheld his gratuity.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Devendrabhai Mulvanlrai Vaidya, 2004 LLR225: 2004-1 LLj 77 (Guj He).
• For calculation of gratuity as payable to the tappers employed in the rubber estates, 'over-kilo' towards incentive will be taken as wages when particularly in the settlements as made between the parties it is termed as 'over-kilo' wages and not the 'over-kilo allowance'.
Kaney Estates v. Gnana Muthu, 2004 LLR 220 (Ker He).
• The qualifying period of 5 years for entitlement of gratuity will not be applicable in case of death of an employee.
Anant Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004-1 LLj 668 (Chhat. He).
• The Controlling and the Appellate Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act were not justified in including disputed benefits under the settlement which were pending while deciding the issue relating to such benefit.
Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, v, Joint Commissioner of Labour, 2004-1 LLJ 774 (Mad He).
• A nominee under the Payment of Gratuity Act is a trustee of other legal heirs of the deceased and as such has no exclusive right over the amount accruing as gratuity.
Gangubai Bhagwan Salawade v. Chimanabai Suryabhan Salawade, (2004) 4 Mah Lj 204: 2004 LLR 1066 (Born HC).
• Since the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act is not a Civil Court, as such, it cannot decide as to who are legal heirs for receiving gratuity.
Gangubai Bhagwan Salawade v. Chimanabai Suryabhan Salawade, 2004 LLR 1066 (Born He). • The provisions of Limitation Act do not apply before the Appellate Authority under the Gratuity Act.
Commanding Officer, Naval Base v. The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2004 LLR 1044 (Ker He).
• For calculation of gratuity of an employee, his absence during the strike period will not be excluded.
Ramakant Atmaram Manjereknr v. N.T.C. (M.N.) Ltd., (2004) 4 Mah Lj 541: 2005 LLR 41 (Born HC).
• On delayed payment of gratuity by an employer, the Appellate Authority must award the interest on late payment as per the mandatory provisions of the Act.
Kasturi Bai v. Sub-Divisional Officer, P.W.D., Sub-Division, Raisen (Madhya Pradesh), 2005 LLR (SN) 414 (MP He).
• Even when an employee is working for 22 days in a month, his gratuity will be caleuiated on 26 days' basis.
Kane Elevators India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Chennai, 2005 LLR 442 (Mad He).
• There is no limitation for claiming gratuity by an employee since it is the obligation of the employer to give notice to the employee specifying his amount of gratuity.
Transport Manager, Kolhapur Municipal Transport Undertaking, Kolhnpur v. Pravin Bhabhutlal Shah, (2005) 1 Mah Lj 497: 2005 LLR 503 (Bam HC).
• When there is a settlement providing better terms for gratuity i.e. 21 days' wages per year instead of 15 days, the caleuiation of gratuity will be at higher rate.
Transport Mnnager, Kolhapur Municipal Transport Undertaking, Kolhnpur v. Pravin Bhabhutlal Shah, (2005) 1 Mah Lj 497: 2005 LLR 503 (Born HC).
• A doctor (Anaesthetist), rendering services "as and when required during operation to be conducted", will not be an employee under clause (e) of section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act particularly when he is having his own dispensary.
Harendra Madanjit Desai v. Secretary, Kasturba Vaidyakiya Rahat Mandai, 2005-1 CLR 943 (Guj He).
• For a Company having branches in different States, the Controlling authority for claiming gra tuity will be under Central Government.
Rhone Poulene (India) Ltd. v. Anjali Devrukhar, (2005) 2 Mah Lj 1052: 2005 LLR 799 (Born He).
• A teacher, neither being skilled nor semi-skilled or unskilled employee, will not be entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Krishna Bembi v. Appellate Authority, Uttar Pradesh under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, 2005 LLR (SN) 1070 (All HC).
• The Central, not the State government, will be appropriate for claiming gratuity by an employee against Regional Rural Bank.
Mahakoushal Kahetriya Gramin Bank v. Appellate Authority, 2005 LLR 1125 (MF He).
• An in-charge of the factory, not taking policy decision but answerable to the Managing Director and the Chairman, will be an 'employee' under the Gratuity Act.
Lalitkumar D, Thakkar v. Controlling Authority & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Surat, 2006 LLR 411 (Guj He).
• When the Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act have not acted against the law, the High Court will not interfere.
Baroda Traders Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Mahendrabhai B. Shah, 2006 LLR 390 (Guj He).
• Gratuity, as payable to an employee or his legal heir, cannot be adjusted against the loan.
Yada Laxmi v. The Andhra Pradesh State Coop. Bank, Hyderabad, 2006 LLR 451 (AP HC). • A teacher is not eligible for gratuity~- but the principal of the school who has been occasionally teaching will be entitled to gratuity.
Administrator, Lahidhi Multipurpose Higher Secondary School v. Vidyavati Chaturvedi, 2006 LLR 624 (Chht. He).
• The orders of the Authorities under Payment of Gratuity Act allowing claim of the gratuity will not be interfered by the High Court when the employee, facing the enquiry, has retired but no penalty has been imposed.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v, Rameshkumar !vmtilal Zaveri, 2006 LLR 620 (Guj HC).
• A trainee will not be entitled to gratuity for the training period.
General Mannger, Yellamma Cotton, Woollen & Silk Mills, Tolahunse, Davanagere v. Regional whour Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bangalore, 2006 LLR 1029 (Kam HC).
• Gratuity will not be payable to an employee who remained absent without leave and has worked for less than 240 days.
General Manager, Yellamma Cotton, Woollen & Silk Mills, Tolahunse, Davanagere v. Regional LAbour Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bangalore, 2006 LLR 1029 (Kam HC).
• Direction by Controlling Authority would not be tenable when employee has not completed five years' service.
Management CM,C. and Hospital, Chennai v. Joint Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act!, Chennai, 2006 LLR 1118 (SN) (Mad HC).
• A teacher including a head mistress will not be entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. fai Rani, 2006 LLR 1137 (Del HC).
• Gratuity cannot be claimed under Industrial Disputes Act since the Payment of Gratuity Act is a self-contained Code.
Chairman and Managing Director, National Textile Corporation (APKK&M) Ltd., Bangalore v. Vemula Lingaiah, 2006 LLR (SN) 1278 (AP HC).
• Excess paymept of gratuity can be adjusted against dues payable to an employee.
State Farms Corporation of India Ltd, v. Regional Labour Commissioner, 2007 LLR 58 (Del HC)
• For delay in payment of gratuity, employer will be liable to pay 10 per cent interest.
S.N. Vasudevaiah v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy lAbour Commissioner, 2007 LLR 108 (Karn HC).
• If an employer fails to pay gratuity within 30 days from the date it became due, statutory interest will be payable.
Pyare Mohan Prasad v. Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, 2007 LLR 173 Ohar HC).
• Late submission of application for gratuity cannot justify non-payment of interest.
Pyare Mohan Prasad v. Regional lAbour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, 2007 LLR 173 (]har HC).
• In case of a conflict between Service Rules and provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, the iatter will prevaiL
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Shivaji, 2007 LLR (SN) 221 (SC).
• An employee will not be entitled to gratuity for the year when not worked for 240 days.
General Manager v. Regional Lnbour Commissioner Central, 2007 LLR 356 (Karn HC).
• An establishment, engaged in processing of fruit and vegetables, will not be a seasonal one for payment of gratuity.
Santhanam R. v. Madura Coats Ltd., Tuticorin, Rep. by its Industrial Relations Manager, 2007 LLR 733 (Mad HC).
• For claiming gratuity, pleadings are not of much importance.
Santhanam R. v. Madura Coats Ltd., Tuticorin, Rep. by its Industrial Relations Manager, 2007 LLR 733 (Mad HC).
• Even a delayed claim for gratuity would be tenable since an employee cannot be made to suffer.
RP. Dhanda v. Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Mumbai, 2007 LLR 895 (SN) (Born HC).
• For calculation of gratuity, service rendered in various units of establishment
shall be taken into account. .
M.e. Chamaraju v. Hind Nippon RuralindU1lrial (P) Ltd., 2007 LLR 1129 (SC).
• Hearing of an employee is imperative before making deduction from his gratuity.
Slate Farms Corporation of india Ltd. v. p.o. Mathai, 2008 LLR 458 (Ker HC).
• In the absence of employer-employee relationship, no gratuity will be payable.
Food Corporation of Tndia v. V. Mohammed Manzil, 2008 LLR 154 (Ker He).
• Interim relief will not to be wages for the purposes of computation of gratuity.
Management, Assam Tribune Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam, 2008 LLR 215 (SN) (Gau HC). • Merely because the Government is giving grant to a Trust, it will not become liable for gratuity to the employees.
, Slate of Gujaral v. Ram Krushna Gopal Soni, 2008 LLR 220 (SN) (Guj HC).
• Neither the conveyance nor the site allowance will form part of wages for calculation of gratuity.
Voltas Limited v. Chandrakant Y. Bhramhane, 2008 LLR 84 (Born HC).
• Pensionary benefit, though introduced unilaterally but having become privilege for employees cannot be fettered by Gratuity Act.
Tala Tea Limited (Bombay) Employees' Union v. Toto Tea Limited, 2008 LLR 19 (Born HC). • Prosecution of an employer for non-payment of gratuity will not be quashed.
J. Kumar v. State of JiUlrkiUlnd, 2008 LLR 243 (fhar HC).
• Prosecution of the employer for non payment of gratuity as actuated with mala
fide is liable to be quashed. .
Dr. M. Mukhopadhaya v. Stale of IharkiUlnd, 2007 LLR 1182 (Jhar HC).
• Sales representatives, under Sales Promotion Employees (CoS) Act, will not be entitled to gratuity.
Asian Paints (Jndia) Ltd. v. Appellate AutilOrity, 2008 LLR 541 (Karn HC).
• Default in making timely payment of gratuity will attract 10% interest.
K.L. Chandna v. Punjab National Bank, 2008 LLR 568 (Del HC).
• Controlling Authority erred in rejecting claim for gratuity as barred by limitation.
KP. Backiasamy v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and Regional Labour Commissioner (Cenlra/), Chennai, 2008 LLR 737 (Mad HC).
• Declining adjustment of housing loan against the gratuity, on employee's request, is not justified.
Punjab and Sind Bank, Chandigarh v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), 2008 LLR 735 (P&H HC).
• Belated claim for gratuity without application for condonation of delay is to be rejected.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2008 LLR 865 (Kam HC).
• A technical te~cher, doing skilled and technical work, will be eligible for gratuity.
Birla Institute of Technology v. State oflharkhand, 2008 LLR 832 (Jhar HC).
• Continuous service for gratuity will be presumed in the absence of order for any break.
H. Rnmappa v. General Manager, Sri Yellamma Cotton Woollen and Silk Mills, Devanagere District. 2008 LLR 839 (Kam HC).
• Trainees/apprentices not appointed under the Apprentices Act will be entitled to gratuity.
H. Ramappa v. General Manager, Sri Yellamma Cotton Woollen and Silk Mills, Devanagere District, 2008 LLR 839 (Kam HC).
• During pendency of the enquiry, delinquent can resign and gratuity will be payable.
Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Nooy Mohammed Abdul Rehman Mulla, 2008 LLR 1113 (SN) (Born HC).
• No fault can be found in computing gratuity on the recommendations of Pay Commission.
Limbdi Municipality v. Inayakhusen Nathumiya Saiyad, 2008 LLR 1115 (SN) (Cuj HC). • An employer cannot escape from payment of interest on delayed gratuity.
Principal Vidarbha Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Hospital, Amravati v. Kausalyabai wlo Prahladrao Raghuvanshi, 2009 LLR 108 (SN) (Born HC).
• Gratuity Act never intended that only Controlling Authority be approached for non-payment of gratuity.
Prashant Swarup v. Union of India, 2009 LLR 159 Ohar HC).
• In the absence of order of employer under section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, forfeiting gratuity, the controlling authority cannot permit employer to retain any portion of the gratuity in anticipa lion of such order.
Narendrakumar Jayshankar Joshi v. General Manager, Panchmahal District Co-operatove Bank Ltd., 2009 LLj 263 (Cuj HC).
0 comments:
Post a Comment