Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Wages and their Determination - Post-2020 cases affirm that wages include all remuneration payable upon termination, including gratuity, bonus, and other dues. The determination of gratuity is based on the last drawn wages and the length of service, with specific provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, emphasizing that gratuity becomes payable on termination ["Swan Mills Limited & another VS Sakharam Dhondu Panchal & others - Bombay"], ["SWAN MILLS LTD vs SAKHARAM B.PANCHAL and ANR - Bombay"], ["Srinivasa Resorts Limited, Hyderabad VS State Of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"].
Gratuity and Its Calculation - Recent judgments highlight that gratuity is a statutory right accruing upon termination, calculated at 15 days' wages per year of service, based on the last drawn wages. The process involves employer's obligation to determine and pay gratuity regardless of employee’s claim ["KORE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LIMITED vs THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT - Kerala"], ["ANIL KUMAR PACHAURI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Srinivasa Resorts Limited, Hyderabad VS State Of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"].
Employment Termination and Legal Protections - Courts consistently uphold that wrongful or illegal termination entitles employees to reinstatement, continuity of service, and back wages, including post-retirement benefits like gratuity and pension. The employer's obligation to pay gratuity is protected as a fundamental right under Article 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution ["DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS JAGDISH PRASAD - Delhi"], ["Delhi Transport Corporation vs Jagdish Prasad - Delhi"], ["DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs JAGDISH PRASAD - Delhi"].
Constitutionality and Fundamental Rights - Several cases discuss the constitutionality of provisions related to wages and gratuity, emphasizing that laws affecting these benefits must not violate fundamental rights. Restrictions or conditions imposed on employees' rights, especially regarding gratuity and wages, are scrutinized for reasonableness and reasonableness under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) ["Srinivasa Resorts Limited, Hyderabad VS State Of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees and Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. and Others - Supreme Court"], ["V. N. SUNDER VS STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Rights to Post-Retirement Benefits - Courts have consistently held that employees have a statutory right to post-retirement benefits like gratuity and pension. Denial or withholding of such benefits, especially in cases of wrongful termination, violates constitutional rights and is subject to judicial review ["DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS JAGDISH PRASAD - Delhi"], ["Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs Shri Shriniwas - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Cement Corporation Of India vs Shri Dhaniram Sahu - Madhya Pradesh"], ["KORE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LIMITED vs THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion - Recent post-2020 jurisprudence underscores the importance of protecting employees' rights to wages, gratuity, and related benefits. Laws and employer actions that undermine these rights are scrutinized for constitutionality, with courts emphasizing that gratuity and wages are fundamental rights that cannot be arbitrarily denied. The consistent legal stance favors employee protection, reinstatement in wrongful termination cases, and the mandatory payment of gratuity based on last drawn wages, aligning with constitutional guarantees ["Swan Mills Limited & another VS Sakharam Dhondu Panchal & others - Bombay"], ["SWAN MILLS LTD vs SAKHARAM B.PANCHAL and ANR - Bombay"], ["Srinivasa Resorts Limited, Hyderabad VS State Of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"], ["DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS JAGDISH PRASAD - Delhi"].
References:["Swan Mills Limited & another VS Sakharam Dhondu Panchal & others - Bombay"]["SWAN MILLS LTD vs SAKHARAM B.PANCHAL and ANR - Bombay"]["Srinivasa Resorts Limited, Hyderabad VS State Of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh"]["KORE SECURITY SERVICES (P) LIMITED vs THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT - Kerala"]["ANIL KUMAR PACHAURI VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad"]["Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees & Workers Union VS Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. - Supreme Court"]["DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS JAGDISH PRASAD - Delhi"]["Delhi Transport Corporation vs Jagdish Prasad - Delhi"]["DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs JAGDISH PRASAD - Delhi"]["Managing Director Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs Shri Shriniwas - Madhya Pradesh"]["Cement Corporation Of India vs Shri Dhaniram Sahu - Madhya Pradesh"]["V. N. SUNDER VS STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]
In the evolving landscape of Indian labour law, employees and employers alike grapple with questions about fair wages, gratuity entitlements, and lawful employment termination. A common query arises: Give me cases post year 2020 which talks about the wages, their determination, gratuity, employment termination, constitutionality, fundamental right of wages etc. I don't want pre-2020 cases. This reflects a growing need for up-to-date jurisprudence that aligns with constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Recent judicial interpretations emphasize social justice, procedural fairness, and broad definitions of 'wages.' While explicit post-2020 case details in some documents highlight ongoing principles, courts continue to uphold employee rights through welfare legislation like the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Industrial Disputes Act. This post explores these developments, integrating key rulings and statutory insights. Note: This is general information based on available legal documents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
Wage determination post-2020 remains rooted in fairness, comparability, and employer capacity, often invoking constitutional equality and livelihood rights. Courts interpret 'wages' expansively to include remuneration essential for livelihood. For instance, gratuity payable on termination constitutes 'wages' protected from attachment TIRJUGI SITARAM VS BADLU PRASAD BHERUPRASHAD - 1961 0 Supreme(MP) 140. This protection reinforces its role as a fundamental component of employee security.
In discussions on wage fixation, courts stress considering standard wages in comparable industries, regional economics, and employer paying capacity, aligning with Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) Bakshish Singh: Union Of India VS Darshan Engineering Works - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 957Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Association, Tamil Nadu VS State of Tamil Nadu - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 61. The interpretation of 'wages' has evolved to encompass all remuneration that serves the purpose of providing livelihood and incentivizing performance Bakshish Singh: Union Of India VS Darshan Engineering Works - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 957.
Additional sources affirm this: Under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, overtime wages are included in 'wages,' and appellate courts cannot deny claims based on absent contracts or wage ceilings Vyavasthapak Murliwala Agro. Ltd. vs Kanhaiya Lal - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1332. Overtime wages are included in the definition of wages under the Payment of Wages Act, and the Appellate Court erred in denying the claim based on contract absence and wage ceiling Vyavasthapak Murliwala Agro. Ltd. vs Kanhaiya Lal - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1332.
Gratuity, governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is a statutory reward for long service, forming part of 'wages' and social security. Courts clarify it cannot be arbitrarily withheld or attached, even in misconduct cases unless statutorily provided Bakshish Singh: Union Of India VS Darshan Engineering Works - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 957TIRJUGI SITARAM VS BADLU PRASAD BHERUPRASHAD - 1961 0 Supreme(MP) 140. Section 4 mandates payment on termination after continuous service, calculated at 15 days' average wages per year Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees and Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. and Others - 2009 Supreme(Online)(SC) 41. Immediately preceding the termination of his employment and for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account. S.7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for the determination of the amount of gratuity Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees and Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. and Others - 2009 Supreme(Online)(SC) 41.
A key ruling reinstated gratuity for an employee resigning after five years, rejecting delay-based denials: The Act serves as a welfare measure for employees' entitlement to gratuity irrespective of timing of application Chander Shekhar Sharma VS Additional Labour Commissioner-Cum-Appellate Authority - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2038. The Controlling Authority under Section 7 determines amounts, ensuring procedural adherence REHMAT ULLAH KHAN VS BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY, JHANSI - 2013 Supreme(All) 525. Thus this much is clear that the Controlling Authority is responsible for the administration of the payment of gratuity. Section 4 talks about payment of gratuity to an employee on the termination of his employment and Section 7 deals with the determination of the amount of gratuity REHMAT ULLAH KHAN VS BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY, JHANSI - 2013 Supreme(All) 525.
Article 41 further supports gratuity as public assistance in cases of want, with restrictions on business rights under Article 19(1)(g) Chander Shekhar Sharma VS Additional Labour Commissioner-Cum-Appellate Authority - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2038.
Termination disputes post-2020 spotlight legality, due process, and rights under Articles 19 and 21. Illegal terminations, especially after long service, may warrant reinstatement, back wages, or compensation General Manager, The Samaja, Buxi Bazar VS Santosh Kumar Muduli - 2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 215B. S. N. L. VS Bhurumal - 2013 8 Supreme 758. Courts examine procedural violations: If an employee’s service is terminated illegally, they are entitled to reinstatement and back wages B. S. N. L. VS Bhurumal - 2013 8 Supreme 758.
In retrenchment cases, compliance with U.P. Industrial Disputes Act Section 6(N) or Industrial Disputes Act Section 25F is mandatory, including notice and compensation State of Uttarakhand VS Udai Singh - 2017 Supreme(UK) 15. Abandonment requires clear evidence, not mere absence. The court found that the workman was required to be issued notice and paid compensation under Section 6(N) State of Uttarakhand VS Udai Singh - 2017 Supreme(UK) 15.
Disproportionate punishments for petty misconduct are struck down, equating them to illegal terminations for back wages purposes CHANDRA BHAN SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 954. In such cases, the principles relating to back wages, etc. will be the same as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination CHANDRA BHAN SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 954.
However, administrative policy changes or unfulfilled promises do not always vest rights if overridden by public interest Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited VS P. P. Suresh & Ors, Etc. Etc. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1114.
These principles, drawn from recent discourse, underscore judicial consistency despite labour code reforms.
Post-2020 Indian jurisprudence robustly protects wages, gratuity, and termination rights, prioritizing fairness and constitutional mandates. While documents affirm enduring principles like gratuity's status as protected 'wages' TIRJUGI SITARAM VS BADLU PRASAD BHERUPRASHAD - 1961 0 Supreme(MP) 140 and procedural imperatives B. S. N. L. VS Bhurumal - 2013 8 Supreme 758, they signal ongoing evolution. Key takeaways:
Stay informed on labour rights to navigate disputes effectively. For tailored advice, seek professional legal counsel.
References:- Bakshish Singh: Union Of India VS Darshan Engineering Works - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 957, Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Association, Tamil Nadu VS State of Tamil Nadu - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 61, TIRJUGI SITARAM VS BADLU PRASAD BHERUPRASHAD - 1961 0 Supreme(MP) 140, B. S. N. L. VS Bhurumal - 2013 8 Supreme 758, General Manager, The Samaja, Buxi Bazar VS Santosh Kumar Muduli - 2023 0 Supreme(Ori) 215, Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited VS P. P. Suresh & Ors, Etc. Etc. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1114, Chander Shekhar Sharma VS Additional Labour Commissioner-Cum-Appellate Authority - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2038, Vyavasthapak Murliwala Agro. Ltd. vs Kanhaiya Lal - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1332, State of Uttarakhand VS Udai Singh - 2017 Supreme(UK) 15, CHANDRA BHAN SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2017 Supreme(All) 954, REHMAT ULLAH KHAN VS BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY, JHANSI - 2013 Supreme(All) 525, Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees and Workers Union v. Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. and Others - 2009 Supreme(Online)(SC) 41, Ram Chandra Oraon VS Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board - 2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1815
#LabourLawIndia, #GratuityRights, #EmploymentTermination
Those employees who been superannuated or have resigned on or before 26th January, 1989 shall be paid Gratuity and other unpaid dues such as Bonus, Earned Wages, Leave with Wags etc. If any." ... Firstly it is contended that there is no order directing reinstatement and consequently last drawn wages can only be wages at the time of termination in the year 1976. The workman was not reinstated. ... of any part thereof in excess of six months as ex grat....
, Leave with Wags etc. ... for those etc
of not less than one year a service compensation amounting to fifteen days average wages for each year of continuous employment: provided that every termination shall be made by the employer in writing and a copy of such termination order shall be furnished to the Inspector having jurisdiction over ... In both the cases there will be termination of contract of service wherefpr notice of a reasonable period and / or wages in lieu therefor may be prov....
Immediately preceding the termination of his employment and for this purpose, the wages paid for any over time work shall not be taken into account. S.7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for the determination of the amount of gratuity. ... continuously for a period of not less than one year, a service compensation amounting to fifteen days average wages for each year of continuous employment: ... provided that every termination shall be ....
Immediately preceding the termination of his employment and for this purpose, the wages paid for any over time work shall not be taken into account. S.7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for the determination of the amount of gratuity. ... continuously for a period of not less than one year, a service compensation amounting to fifteen days average wages for each year of continuous employment: ... provided that every termination shall be ....
amounting to fifteen days average wages for each year of continuous service. ... The payment of service compensation under this Section shall not apply in cases where the employee is entitled to gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and gratuity has been paid accordingly consequent on the termination or cessation of service. ... The onerousness of sub-Section 4 was also noted by the High Court that the employee becomes entitled to be paid the wages from the....
Article 41 of the Constitution directs the State to make effective provision, among others, for securing public assistance in old age and in other cases of undeserved want. ... Further, there is a restriction placed on the exercise of the fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) by clause (6) of the said Article. ... The Controlling Authority, therefore, calculated the amount of gratuity due to the employee as Rs. 1782/- at the rate of 15 days' wages per year of serv....
as to forfeiture of gratuity as per Section 4(6) etc. ... It is argued that in various cases, the employees had earlier got payment of gratuity on the basis of substantive pay by excluding Dearness Allowance and HRA but they again filed the cases before the Controlling Authority by seeking calculation of gratuity on entire wages including Dearness Allowance ... On the other hand, SSR 32 does not talk about “wages”, but talks about “....
payable on the termination of employment in cases other than those specified in sub-clause (d).” ... as to forfeiture of gratuity as per Section 4(6) etc. ... The dues of gratuity being dues which become payable on termination of employment are therefore, covered within the larger definition of “wages” as per Section 2(vi)(d) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 19. ... Therefore, it follows that the order denying the petitioner right to ....
Section 4 (2) of the Gratuity Act would have been different. The Gratuity Act was enacted in 1972, while the Minimum Wages Act was enacted in the year 1948. ... He argued that this does not amount to the exercise of powers under the Minimum Wages Act, but is intended to give effect to Section 2 (s) of the Gratuity Act in consonance with Section 4 (2) of the Gratuity Act reads thus:- “For every completed year of service or part there....
(6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employment in cases other than those specified in sub-clause (d).]” 14. Evidently, the case is covered under Clause (b). As such for overtime work done, the wages of the petitioners remain due with the respondent. In view of the statutory provision, the Appellate Court exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as it did not meet with the reasons of the “Authority” nor acted consistent with the statutory provision aforesaid. The statutory provisions under the Payment of Wages Act as well as Factories Act are to ....
Having accepted that, they could not claim double benefits. The Board has taken a definite stand that these employees cannot claim benefits at par with the employees of the State Government, nor are their salaries etc. paid from the government exchequer. They have accepted post-retirement benefits like gratuity and C.P.F benefits under the C.P.F scheme which governed their cases right since their appointment. These employees are getting L.I.C benefits and pension admissible under the said retirement benefits.
In such cases, the principles relating to back wages, etc. will be the same as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination.” Second is where the Court reaches a conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty misconduct, as a camouflage to get rid of the employee or victimise him, and the disproportionately excessive punishment is a result of such scheme or intention.
In such cases, the principles relating to back wages, etc. will be the same as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination. Second is where the court reaches a conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty misconduct, as a camouflage to get rid of the employee or victimise him, and the disproportionately excessive punishment is a result of such scheme or intention. In this case, the Labour Court found that a charge against the employee in respect of a serious misconduct was proved.
Thus this much is clear that the Controlling Authority is responsible for the administration of the payment of gratuity. Section 4 talks about payment of gratuity to an employee on the termination of his employment and Section 7 deals with the determination of the amount of gratuity.
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
