Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
A.R.Seraman Peruman (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority-Cum-Joint Commissioner Of Labour – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners are retired employees seeking gratuity payment. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. controlling authority has jurisdiction over gratuity disputes based on private settlements. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. writ petitions allowed; banks mandated to pay as per settlements. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are interrelated, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.
2.The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the retired employees of Dharmapuri District Co-Operative Bank Limited/second respondent in W.P.No.31042 of 2014 and Kancheepuram Central Co-Operative Bank Limited/ third respondent in W.P.No.34486 of 2024 and after their retirement, the respective Bank did not pay gratuity amount to the petitioners in terms of the 12 (3) settlement entered by the respective Bank with the employees. Therefore, the petitioners approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, allowed their claims against which, the respective Bank filed appeal before the Appellate Authority und
The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has jurisdiction to decide disputes based on private settlements under the Industrial Disputes Act, which was clarified against contradicto....
The Payment of Gratuity Act allows claims for both statutory and contractual gratuity to be adjudicated under the same authority, ensuring employee rights are protected.
The authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be determined by statutory provisions, not consent, particularly when dealing with establishments operating in multiple States.
Liability to pay gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act is determined based on the provisions of Section 2(A) read with Section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and relevant judicial preced....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for Authorities to consider all contentions raised by the parties and the willingness of the contractors to deposit a sum to cover ....
The appropriate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for establishments with branches in multiple states is the Central Government, rendering state authority's jurisdiction invalid.
The Court emphasized the importance of issuing a proper show cause notice before forfeiting gratuity and upheld the principle of 'forum convenience' in determining territorial jurisdiction.
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
