Back
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Chief Conservator of Forest Capital Project Administration Van Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Sabir Khan – 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,
Covid-19 virus - Cognizance for extension of limitation - Supreme court said that Period of limitation in all proceedings extended till extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders in view of situa....
The employer must deposit the entire amount of payment of gratuity determined by the Controlling Authority and prefer an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The A....
The non-condonable nature of delay beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity act, 1972 and the mandatory nature of the limitation under the act.
Point of Law : There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order passed by Appellate Authority and it has rightly affirmed the order passed by Authority. Counsel for petitioner has not....
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
