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

2022 Supreme(MP) 131

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Chief Conservator of Forest Capital Project Administration Van Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Sabir Khan – Respondent


Advocates:
Prashant Mishra, Panel Lawyer for petitioner; J.L. Soni for respondent.

ORDER

1. The petitioner-State in the instant petition calls in question the order dated 23.7.2020 (Annexure P-2) in Gratuity Appeal No.26/2020 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "Act of 1972).

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-employee filed an application under section 7 of the Act of 1972 claiming certain payment of gratuity. The petitioner- employer was proceeded ex-parte before the Labour Court and, thereafter, an order dated 7.1.2020 was passed directing the petitioner-employer to make payment of Rs.2,65,527/- as gratuity and interest of Rs.59,744/-.

3. The petitioner-employer filed an appeal under section 7(7) of the Act of 1972 before the appellate authority. When the matter was taken-up for hearing on 23.7.2020, it was found that as per the mandate of the second proviso of sub-section (7) of section 7 of the Act of 1972, the employer did not produce the certificate of the Controlling Authority to the effect that the employer has deposited the amount with the Controlling Authority equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (7) of section 7 of the Act of 1972 and,

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