Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Vitesco Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Christopher Francis Dais – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :
1) Petitioner-employer has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Industrial Court, Pune allowing Appeal PGA No. 25 of 2022 filed by Respondent and setting aside Controlling Authority’s order dated 19 September 2022. The Controlling Authority had held Application (PGA) No.13/2015 filed by Respondent to be not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. While setting aside the order of the Controlling Authority, the Appellate Authority has held the Application (PGA) No.13/2015 to be maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority. Accordingly, the Controlling Authority has been directed to decide the remaining issues based on oral and documentary evidence already led by the parties. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority holding Application (PGA) No.13/2015 to be maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority, Petitioner-employer has filed the present petition.
2) The Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles ancillaries. Respondent has functioned as managing director of the
The Payment of Gratuity Act allows claims for both statutory and contractual gratuity to be adjudicated under the same authority, ensuring employee rights are protected.
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 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must include entire continuous service, including stop-gap employment, unless exempted by the appropriate Government.
The Court emphasized the importance of issuing a proper show cause notice before forfeiting gratuity and upheld the principle of 'forum convenience' in determining territorial jurisdiction.
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
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....
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
