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

2004 Supreme(All) 246

SUNIL AMBWANI
Hindalco Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Kanpur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.B.Singh, SANJAY MISHRA,

Judgement Key Points

To download the legal document, you should follow these steps:

  1. Identify the source or platform where the document is hosted or stored. This could be an online legal database, a court's official website, or a document management system.

  2. If the document is available on a website, look for a download or export option, often represented by icons such as a download arrow or a PDF symbol.

  3. Use the document's unique identifiers, such as the case number or title, to locate it within the platform's search function.

  4. Once located, select the download option to save the file to your device. The document may be available in formats like PDF, Word, or other compatible formats.

  5. If you have access restrictions, ensure you are logged in or have the necessary permissions to download the document.

If the document is not publicly available online, you may need to request it through the relevant court or legal authority, providing the case details or citation for identification.


SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Sanjay Misra for petitioner. No one appears for respondents. The petitioner is challenging the orders passed by Controlling authority and the Appellate Authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by which the petitioner had been directed to pay the entire amount of gratuity of Rs. 23,190/- along with cost of the case assessed as Rs. 100/- within 30 davs.

( 2 ) THE claimant-respondent No. 3 was engaged as workman by the petitioner company on December 8, 1965. After a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service on April 2, 1986 for an act of misbehaviour. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred and adjudicated as Industrial Dispute No. 61 of 1987 and was decided against him on February 24, 1989. A writ petition No. Nil of 1989 filed by the workman against the award was dismissed on November 1, 1989. The workman requested the company for payment of gratuity, and thereafter filed an application before the controlling Authority under Payment of gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority found that no evidence has been led to show that the workman was guilty of any such acts of disorderly or riotous behaviour which may have










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