Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR
R.Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
Tecknoweld Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. gratuity cannot be withheld without disciplinary proceedings (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. employer's right to withhold gratuity due to employee's misconduct (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. dispute over the submission of travel expenses and advances (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. no disciplinary action means gratuity must be paid (Para 10 , 13 , 18) |
| 6. legal precedents on gratuity and its protection from attachment (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 7. conclusion and order to refund gratuity (Para 19) |
ORDER :
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Challenging the order passed by the Trial Court directing the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs to deposit a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- in to court deposit and also directing the third respondent/second defendant not to take any action against the respondents 1 and 2 for non depositing the gratuity amount, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner/first plaintiff.
2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant and the third respondent is second defendant. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.46 of 2022.
3. Brief background in filing the revision is as follows:
3.a. The suit has been originally filed by the
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be withheld without established disciplinary proceedings or quantifiable losses, as per statutory provisions protecting gratuity from attachment.
Forfeiture of gratuity is premature when dismissal is under appeal and criminal proceedings are pending, emphasizing the need for adherence to natural justice.
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be withheld on the basis of dues unless misconduct is established prior to retirement.
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
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.
Point of Law : It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as "law" within the meaning of aforesaid Article 30....
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.
Gratuity cannot be withheld posthumously unless the employee's service was terminated; death in harness entitles the widow to full gratuity 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
