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

DELHI HIGH COURT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
Public Works Department – Appellant
Versus
Pappu – Respondent


Table of Content
1. challenge to payment of gratuity order. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding appeal applicability and validity. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court's directive on appeal and stay of recovery. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. disposal of the petition with costs. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the order of the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, wherein the petitioner was held liable to make the payment of gratuity to the respondents/workmen even for the period when they were on the muster roll.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will not be applicable for the period when these respondents were on the muster roll. It has been submitted that the statutory appeal, as provided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, could not be filed within the prescribed period and there was a delay of about 20 to 30 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the prescribed period had expired, they could not file the appeal. It has been submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the petitioner may be permitte

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