Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Managing Director, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Nath Ojha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to gratuity payment decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. definition of employee under the act. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments on permissible recovery from gratuity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court reasoning on adjustments and recovery. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition without costs. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
R.K.PATTANAIK, J.
1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned decision by the order under Annexure-12 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to the ‘Act’) followed by dismissal of appeal vide Annexure-14 on the grounds inter alia that the direction of payment of full gratuity without directing recovery of dues as illegal and perverse, hence, therefore, the same are liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice.
2. In fact, opposite party No.2 as the Controlling Authority under the Act passed the order dated 30th January, 2009 (Annexure-12) in P.G.Case No.31 of 2008 and thereafter, the order dated 15th January, 2011 by the learned Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act-Cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in P.G.(A) Case No.31 of 2008, which are und
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
