Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., V.Khalid, J.
F.R.Jesuratnam
Versus
Union Of India
Case No., 2827 of 1986
Date of Decision, 9/30/86
Matter of right of employee – Employment and service - Court are of view that gratuity is no longer a bounty but it is a matter of right of employee and it can therefore no longer be regarded as a provision in discretion of President as provided in Pension Regulations - Since there is no legal provision empowering authorities to forfeit gratuity payable to an employee – Held, Court accordingly set aside order of High court as also Order of the government forfeiting gratuity of appellant and direct that gratuity shall be paid to appellant forthwith - There will be no order as to costs of appeal - Appeal is disposed of
Judgment
P.N. BHAGWATI, CJI.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) WE are of the view that gratuity is no longer a bounty but it is a matter of right of the employee and it can therefore no longer be regarded as a provision in the discretion of the President as provided in the Pension Regulations. Since there is no legal provision empowering the authorities to forfeit the gratuity payable to an employee, the order passed by the government forfeiting the gratuity payable to the appellant must be held to be bad and must be set aside. We accordingly set aside the order of the High court as also the Order of the government forfeiting the gratuity of the appellant and direct that gratuity shall be paid to the appellant forthwith. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
