Back
M. K. THAKKER
JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Controlling Authority Under Payment And Gratuity Act – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.U.T Mishra waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.3.
2. The present petitions are arising out of identical issue and therefore, a common order is passed. The facts of the SCA No.10607 of 2024 are taken for consideration.
3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Vadodara under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 rejecting the waiver application filed by the present petitioner regarding depositing the requisite amount of gratuity as awarded by the learned Controlling Authority.
3.1. The facts enumerated in the present petition is that petitioner company is registered as Asset Reconstruction Company with RBI under the provisions of section 3 of SARFAESI Act and respondent No.4 had availed loan facilities from various banks including ICICI Bank, Central Bank of India, Development Credit Bank, State Bank of India, Industrial Development Bank, Union Trust of India etc. Respondent no.4 and its obligatory failed to comply with the repayment of obligation and therefore, loan accou
A secured creditor cannot be deemed an employer under the Payment of Gratuity Act, thus exempting them from the pre-deposit requirement for appealing a gratuity claim.
Employers must comply with statutory deposit requirements before appealing against gratuity determinations; failure to deposit the determined amount renders the appeal inadmissible.
Forfeiture of gratuity is premature when dismissal is under appeal and criminal proceedings are pending, emphasizing the need for adherence to natural justice.
The term 'amount equal to the amount of gratuity' under the Payment of Gratuity Act includes both gratuity and accrued interest for pre-deposit required to admit an appeal.
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
Point of Law- It is fundamental rule of interpretation that courts would not fill up the gaps in statute, their function being jus discre non facere i.e. to declare and decide law. The aforementioned....
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....
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....
Gratuity is a statutory entitlement not subject to withholding after superannuation absent explicit legal grounds for forfeiture, emphasizing employee protection under the Act.
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
