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

1996 Supreme(Ker) 163

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
Muraleedharan – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent


Judgment :-

Abdul Gafoor, J.

An important issue has come up to he resolved - whether Government can stay the revenue recovery proceedings initialed to recover the amounts due under the orders of the authorities set up under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or the Payment of Wages Act 1936 or whether they can grant instalment facilities to an employer who defaulted in payment of such amount determined by the respective quasi judicial authorities.

2. The petitioner was an employee under the 5th respondent. Gratuity due to him was not paid He moved the Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Authority, by Ext. P1, directed the fifth respondent to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.29,665.57 within 30 days from 3.11.1992 and in default thereof within 15% interest

3. Claiming arrears of wages due from the 5th respondent, the petitioner approached Payment of Wages Authorities (Labour Court), Kollam under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The authority passed Exl.P2 order directing the 5th respondent to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 37,380/- within a month from 2.3.1993.

4. The 5th respondent committed default and did not pay the a














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