Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for SHREE SAJJAN MILLS LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, M. P. ,bhopal...
Checking relevance for Sudhir Chandra Sarkar VS Tata Iron And Steel Company LTD. ...
1984 0 Supreme(SC) 96 : Yes, the respondent has a legal liability to provide gratuity to the petitioner under the applicable law. The court held that the Retiring Gratuity Rules, 1937, which were incorporated into the Certified Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, made gratuity an express statutory condition of service. The court rejected the respondent''''s claim of absolute discretion under Rule 10, finding it arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court concluded that such absolute discretion is inconsistent with modern notions of fair industrial relations and social justice, and therefore ineffective and unenforceable. As the petitioner had completed the required continuous service, he was entitled to gratuity as a matter of right, and the respondent''''s refusal to pay constituted a breach of statutory obligation that could be enforced through a civil suit.Checking relevance for United India Insurance Co. LTD. , Shimla VS Tilak Singh...
Checking relevance for W. T. Suren And Company LTD. VS Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay...
1998 0 Supreme(SC) 265 : Yes, the respondent (assessee) had a legal liability to provide gratuity to the petitioner (employees) under the applicable gratuity scheme. The court held that the services of the employees were terminated when the assessee closed its distribution unit, and as a result, the employees became entitled to gratuity under the scheme announced by the assessee on 31/08/1953. The payment of gratuity to M/s. Rallis India Ltd. on behalf of the employees was an expenditure wholly laid or expended for the purpose of the business of the assessee and was allowable as a deduction. The court emphasized that the obligation of the assessee to pay gratuity was an obligation in praesenti, and the payment was made with the consent of the transferred employees, confirming the existence of a legal liability.Checking relevance for Independent Schools’ Federation of India (Regd. ) VS Union of India...
2022 7 Supreme 823 : Yes, the respondent (private educational institution) has a legal liability to provide gratuity to the petitioner (teacher) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as amended by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from 3rd April 1997. The amendment to Section 2(e) and insertion of Section 13A rectified a legal defect that previously excluded teachers from the definition of ''''employee'''' under the Act. The court held that the amendment was necessary to correct an injustice and discrimination suffered by teachers due to a legislative mistake, and that the provisions of the PAG Act apply to teachers who were in service on 3rd April 1997 and have rendered at least 5 years of service, with the entire service period (including prior to 3rd April 1997) counted for eligibility. The court further directed private schools to make payment to employees/teachers along with interest within 6 weeks, confirming the legal liability of the respondent to pay gratuity.Checking relevance for Allahabad Bank VS All India Allahabad Bank Retired Emps. Assn. ...
2009 8 Supreme 235 : Yes, the respondent (Allahabad Bank) has a legal liability to provide gratuity to the petitioner (retired employees) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that the right to receive gratuity under the Act cannot be defeated by any instrument or contract, and there was no material showing that employees expressly or impliedly waived their statutory right to gratuity. The bank had not obtained exemption from the operation of the Act from the appropriate Government, and therefore, the statutory obligation to pay gratuity remains enforceable. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the retired employees were entitled to gratuity under the Act.Checking relevance for Jagdish Prasad Saini VS State of Rajasthan...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 980 : Yes, the respondent (management establishment) has a legal liability to provide gratuity to the petitioner under the applicable act. The court held that Rule 82 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions, Etc.) Rules, 1993, provides that employees of aided educational institutions are entitled to gratuity as payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court emphasized that the management establishment, being the employer, cannot escape its liability to pay gratuity upon termination of employment, even though the institution receives grant-in-aid from the State. The court further directed the respondents (including the management establishment) to calculate and pay the amount of gratuity to the appellants within six weeks from the date of the order, based on their initial date of entry in the school till the date of absorption by the State.
