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,
Supreme Court: In an interesting case where the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., was to answer whether
Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge – 03 decided a matter wherein an employee claimed full back wages
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J., allowed a petition which was filed
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., addressed whether the 2010 amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act
Tripura High Court: Akil Kureshi, CJ., dismissed a writ petition which was filed aggrieved about non-payment of gratuity and pension after retirement.
by Akaant Kumar Mittal† and Lavanya Jha††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 51
The observation came in a case where a SAIL employee had retained a quarter after his retirement due to non-payment of retiral benefits.
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT): The Coram of Dr Deepti Mukesh (Judicial Member) and Sumita Purkayastha (Technical Member), reiterated that any shortfall in
Allahabad High Court: While deciding the petition in favour of the petitioner, Manish Kumar, J., prohibited the U.P. Government from adjusting the
Supreme Court: In a 2:1 verdict, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the