SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 586

S.N.VARIAVA, S.RAJENDRA BABU
E. I. D. Parry (I) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
G. Omkar Murthy – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-In these cases the respondents-employees were in the employment of the appellant between the years 1958 and 1984. On October 1, 1984 voluntary retirement scheme was introduced and the respondents availed of that benefit and left the services after obtaining the terminal benefits as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act ). Thereafter petitions were filed under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act ) claiming the difference between the gratuity received by them and the gratuity payable under Section 40 of the State Act. Before the Authority under the State Act, three objections were raised that (i) there has been inordinate delay in preferring the claim; (ii) for payment of gratuity the Central Act prevails over the State Act, and (iii) the question whether the gratuity payable under the Central Act is more favourable than the State Act could not be examined by the trial court concerned. The trial court, however, gave relief to the workmen. The appellate authority dismissed all the three appeals. Revision petitions filed before the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top