Back
HARISANKAR V. MENON
TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
CHANDRAN V. S/O VELAYUDHAN – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the employer questioning the findings rendered by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the “Act”) as confirmed by the appellate authority under the statute.
2. The short facts as culled out from W.P. (C) No. 32886 of 2018 are as under:
Pursuant to the settlement arrived at, the canteen workers were taken in the rolls of the petitioner company as seen from clause 1 of Ext.P2. Clauses 5 and 6 of Ext.P2 to the extent applicable herein read as under:
“5. For the purpose of Gratuity, the
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 overrides contractual agreements, ensuring gratuity eligibility is determined by statutory provisions rather than settlement terms.
The Gratuity Act provides overriding rights for gratuity claims that cannot be denied unless specifically exempted by law, even when alternative welfare benefits exist.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to all employees, including daily wage employees, and entitles them to gratuity for their entire ser....
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
