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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 953

D.MURUGESAN
Arunachalam S – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Southern Structurals, Madras and Others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:S. Ramaswamy, S. Raghavan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The petitioner was employed as Assistant (Trainee) in the 1st respondent company on June 2, 1984 for a period of two years. Since he was a Post Graduate Degree holder at the time of joining, he was posted as Assistant in the personnel department against the permanent vacancy. During the period of two years, the petitioner was treated as a full member of the department and was allotted duties equivalent to other staff of personnel department. He was paid a consolidated stipend of Rs. 650/- till his probation was declared on June 8, 1986. The petitioner resigned his services with effect from the closing of August 12, 1991. On his resignation, the petitioner was paid all statutory dues to which the petitioner was entitled to, except the gratuity for the period from June 2, 1984 to June 7, 1986. The total amount of gratuity due for the period from June 2, 1984 to June 7, 1986 works out to Rs. 1, 889.80.

The petitioner made a claim before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the definition of Section 2(e) of "the Act" only
























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