Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in February 2024
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“Section 4(5) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is indicative of fact that the Act being a beneficial legislation, entitlement of employee cannot be reduced below the prescribed ceiling limit under Section 4(3) of Act, rather this provision approves receiving of a better gratuity than what is notified by Central Government.”
Calcutta High Court acknowledged that LIC had indeed transferred the amount and issued a certificate to employer, enabling them to file the statutory appeal.
The Court held that the contradiction between agreement and provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, rendered the agreement unenforceable in terms of payment of gratuity.
On 18-9-2023, the Ministry of Finance approved a series of welfare measures for the benefit of Life Insurance Corporation of India (‘LIC’)
The State acts as a model employer that can’t discriminate among its employees and give a benefit that is conferred under the applicable rules/instructions to some, and deny the same to others.
Kerala High Court suggested the petitioner to choose between Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Kerala State Housing Board Employees’ (Pension and other Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 for claim of gratuity or DCRG, since he cannot have gratuity under one with the ceiling limit payable under another Act.
Supreme Court upheld the NCLT order that the provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund are not part of the liquidation estate, for distribution under Section 53 of the IBC and the same has to be paid to the employees under the stated heads.
Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea moved by the consortium and upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s order directing the consortium to pay the provident fund and gratuity dues of the employees of Jet Airways
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Allowing the appeal as the impugned order is contrary to law, the bench comprising of Rakesh
On 10.02.2020, a division bench had come to the conclusion that the view taken by this Court in Preetam Singh’s case needs reconsideration after it prima facie found that the functions of the Board contemplated under Section 15 of the 1965 Act were wide enough even to cover the act of fixing service conditions of its employees. Hence, the matter was referred to a larger bench.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi: In a batch of appeals filed challenging order dated 22-06-2021 passed by the National
“When the legislature acts within its power to usher in a valid law and rectify a legal error, even after a court ruling, the legislature exercises its constitutional power to enact the law and does not overrule an earlier court decision.”
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. while noting that there were no legitimate grounds to deny the employee of gratuity and other
Calcutta High Court: Amrita Sinha, J. disposed of a petition which was filed by an Assistant Teacher who retired from service on
Supreme Court: Reversing the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court, the Bench of S. Abdul
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J., reiterated that, interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary. The petitioner had
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. allowed a writ petition which was filed assailing the legality, validity and propriety of
Supreme Court: In a detailed judgment stressing on the importance of the work done by the Anganwadi workers/helpers at the grassroot level,