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

1995 Supreme(SC) 760

M.M.PUNCHHI, SUJATA V.MANOHAR
Aspinwall And Company, Kulshekar, Mangalore – Appellant
Versus
Lalitha Padugady – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, G.B.PAI, MIRA MATHUR, O.C.MATHUR, PRABIR CHAUDHARY

(1) THESE five Civils bearing Nos. 4086 to 4090 of 1986 would be disposed of by a common order since the question of law raised in these is common.

(2) IN each case, there is a workman arrayed as respondent, Undisputably that workman was employed in a seasonal establishment of the employer- appellant. The activity of the establishment is curing coffee. The industry involved has been declared seasonal under Section 25-A(2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In each calendar year the factory remains closed from the month of June to the month of September. The establishment as a consequence is in operation from September onwards till June in the year following. The claim of each workman before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was that he had a right to have his gratuity computed at the rate of 7 days wages for two seasons in each calendar year on the basis that the calendar year is a unit and the period of work stood split into two seasons. Support for the claim was sought from the fact that the establishment maintained its accounting year from January 1st to December 31 st and so, it was claimed, computation of gratuity has to fall in









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