Back
RITU BAHRI, RAKESH THAPLIYAL
Babu Ram Kashyap – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
1. Since a common issue is involved in this bunch of writ petitions, it is being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of WPMB No. 75 of 2023 Babu Ram Kashyap Vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) are being taken-up for consideration.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the PG Act).
4. The petitioner preferred a claim for grant of Service Gratuity after seeking VRS on 10.11.2014 in terms of the Bank after completing active service of 36 years 3 months and 12 days, but his claim for gratuity was not decided and he approached the Controlling Authority for issuing appropriate direction to the Bank for deciding the claim. The Bank decided the claim vide order dated 06.05.2019 (Annexure PA-1) and an amount of Rs. 11,87,100.00 (Rs. Eleven Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand One Hundred Only) was granted as the Service Gratuity. It was stated that it has been calculated as per Syndicate Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 (for short “SBOSR”). The calculation of
The definition of 'pay' for gratuity calculation includes special allowances, and the interest rate cannot be reduced below statutory provisions.
Special allowances are excluded from gratuity calculations under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as per its statutory definition of wages.
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
