Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK JAIN
Cement Corporation Of India – Appellant
Versus
Shankar Das Bairagi – Respondent
ORDER :
VIVEK JAIN, J.
The present petitions are filed by the same employer against different employees involving same legal issue and therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts shall be taken from M.P. 3996/2025.
2. The employees in all these cases except in M.P. No.3996/2025 were appointed in the year 1999, whereas the employee in M.P. No.3996/2025 was appointed on 01.02.1997. The employee in M.P. No.3996/2000 has retired on 30.11.2019, employee in M.P. No.3998/2025 has retired on 30.09.2021, employee in M.P. No.4001/2025 has retired on 01.01.2019 and that in M.P. No.4005/2025 has retired on 31.12.2018. All these employees filed applications before the Controlling Authority seeking gratuity in the year 2021 or 2022, which is admittedly 2 to 3 years after their retirement.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short referred to as Act of 1972) have erred in passing the impugned orders and allowing the applications for payment of Gratuity filed by the respondent employees. It is argued that the impugned o
Interpreting Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon employee filing an application before employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessat....
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
The court affirmed that the controlling authority can determine the employer-employee relationship for gratuity claims, establishing that IIT Bombay was liable for gratuity payments to contract emplo....
The court emphasized that without a clear employer-employee relationship, liability for gratuity payments cannot be placed upon the principal employer, especially in cases involving contractors.
Retainer performing managerial duties qualifies as employee under Gratuity Act; State authority competent for single-location posting despite multi-state branches, emphasizing dominant work nature ov....
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
