Back
G. S. KULKARNI
Municipal Commissioner – Appellant
Versus
Anita Digambar Jadhav – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
G.S. Kulkarni, J. - Rule on both the writ petitions. Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. These are two writ petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, 'MCGM'). Writ Petition No. 9565 of 2017 pertains to a claim of the respondent for payment of the amount of the Provident Fund dues of Rs.3,66,240/-. Writ Petition No.5212 of 2019 pertains to the respondent's claim for an amount of Rs.1,06,841/- towards gratuity amount. The authorities below have allowed the said claims as payable to the respondent who is the niece of the deceased employee of the MCGM Smt. Ratnamala Sadashiv Salve.
Writ Petition No. 9565 of 2017
3. This writ petition assails an order dated 24 July, 2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sixth Labour Court, Mumbai on an application (IDA) No. 19 of 2015 filed by the respondent-Mrs. Anita Digambar Jadhav under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act thereby claiming Provident Fund dues, which were payable to Ratnamala Sadashiv Salve (for short, 'deceased employee'). The respondent claimed such amount in the capacity as the only surviving legal heir, being the niece of the decease
The court established that a valid nomination under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be made in favor of a non-family member when the employee has no surviving family, and that the nominee has a right....
Employees are entitled to gratuity per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 despite other internal regulations, unless an exemption is formally established.
Interpreting Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon employee filing an application before employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessat....
Gratuity cannot be withheld posthumously unless the employee's service was terminated; death in harness entitles the widow to full gratuity under the Act.
The entire duration of an employee's service is considered for Gratuity entitlements, and non-deposit of awarded Gratuity prevents appellants from successfully appealing against such claims.
The availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy under the statutory provisions and the non-mandatory nature of the requirement of filing a written application for gratuity under Rule 7 of the....
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
Gratuity and provident fund claims of employees are not part of the liquidation estate under the IBC, 2016 and must be prioritized for payment.
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
