{"id":375667,"date":"2026-02-13T18:00:08","date_gmt":"2026-02-13T12:30:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=375667"},"modified":"2026-02-18T17:58:34","modified_gmt":"2026-02-18T12:28:34","slug":"del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction when establishment has branches in multiple States"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> While hearing a writ petition filed under Articles 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> seeking quashing of order dated 10-12-2014 (‘impugned order I’) passed by the Controlling Authority appointed by the Government of NCT of Delhi (‘CA’) and the order dated 21-10-2015 passed by the Appellate Authority (‘impugned order II’) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972<\/a> (‘Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Shail Jain held that both the CA and the appellate authority lacked the inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims of payment of gratuity where the establishment had branches in multiple States.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956<\/a>, having its registered office at Delhi and its head office in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. It was engaged in the manufacture of Automatic Data Processing machines and development of Information Technology software and operated through offices in more than one State.<\/p>\n

Respondent 3 (‘claimant’) had been employed with the petitioner since 1994 as a System Executive and had last drawn wages of Rs. 15,000 per month. He had resigned from service with effect from 1-3-2013. Subsequently, he had sought release of gratuity and certain other dues. The petitioner had denied his claims, including gratuity, contending that he had not complied with the requisite conditions of resignation and was therefore not entitled to any payment.<\/p>\n

The claimant thereafter had filed an application under Section 7(4)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> before the CA, claiming Rs. 1,64,423 towards gratuity along with other dues. The petitioner had raised a preliminary objection specifically challenging the jurisdiction of the CA.<\/p>\n

The CA, vide the impugned order I, had held that it had jurisdiction on the ground that the registered office of the management was situated in Delhi, as reflected in the reply filed by the management and on its letterheads. On merits, it had held that the resignation was not disputed and that no statutory ground had been shown to disentitle the claimant from gratuity. Accordingly, it awarded gratuity for 18 years amounting to Rs. 1,55,769 along with interest at 10 per cent per annum from 1-3-2013 till actual payment, while rejecting the remaining claims as beyond its jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, vide impugned order II, had dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter to the CA with a direction to release the gratuity amount deposited by the petitioner in favour of the claimant in terms of impugned order I.<\/p>\n

The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the CA and the appellate authority, contending that in view of its operations in more than one State, the appropriate Government under the Act was the Central Government, and therefore the authorities appointed by the Government of NCT of Delhi lacked competence to adjudicate the dispute.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court noted that Section 2(a)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> defines ‘appropriate Government’ and, inter alia, vests such authority in the Central Government in relation to an establishment having branches in more than one State. In all other cases, the State Government is designated as the appropriate Government. Thus, the statutory scheme makes a clear distinction based on the nature and geographical spread of the establishment, not on the situs of employment of an individual employee.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the petitioner had offices at Delhi and Noida. The gratuity application itself mentioned both addresses; the resignation letter of the claimant as well as subsequent legal notices were addressed to the Noida office. These documents established that the establishment had branches in more than one State within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i)(b)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court held that the case squarely attracted Section 2(a)(i)(b)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, and therefore the Central Government was the ‘appropriate Government’. The CA could not assume jurisdiction merely because the claimant asserted that he had worked in Delhi. Jurisdiction under the Act is founded on the statutory designation of the appropriate Government and not on the place of posting of the employee.<\/p>\n

The Court further clarified that the defect was not one of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction capable of waiver. It was a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. An authority appointed by an incompetent Government under the Act could not derive jurisdiction by consent or acquiescence of parties.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, it was held that the CA and the appellate authority lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under Section 7(4)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> and the appeal under Section 7(7)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. Thus, the Court declared the impugned orders to be without jurisdiction and, consequently, null and void.<\/p>\n

[CSAT System Pvt. Ltd. v. Appellant Authority, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 528<\/a>, decided on 09-02-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> Saurabh Shandilya, Advocate<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> Kailash Sharma, Pushpanjali Tripathi, Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The fundamental error permeating both the impugned orders is the assumption that merely because the claimant worked or claimed to have worked in Delhi, the Controlling Authority appointed by the State Government and the Appellate Authority derived jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67539,"featured_media":375668,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[98806,40892,98807,2543,35092,93746,57465,61406,98808],"class_list":["post-375667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-appellant-authority-under-the-payment-of-gratuity-act-1972","tag-appropriate-government","tag-claim-of-gratuity","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-inherent-jurisdiction","tag-justice-shail-jain","tag-lack-of-jurisdiction","tag-payment-of-gratuity-act-1972","tag-state-authority-lacks-inherent-jurisdiction"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC: State Gratuity Authorities lack jurisdiction in multi-state establishments | SCC Times-State<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court holds that State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 when an establishment operates across multiple States.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction when establishment has branches in multiple States\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court holds that State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 when an establishment operates across multiple States.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-13T12:30:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-18T12:28:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction when establishment has branches in multiple States\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prarthana Gupta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC: State Gratuity Authorities lack jurisdiction in multi-state establishments | SCC Times-State\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-13T12:30:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-18T12:28:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court holds that State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 when an establishment operates across multiple States.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"State Gratuity authorities lack jurisdiction for multi-state establishments-State establishments\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction when establishment has branches in multiple States\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382\",\"name\":\"Prarthana Gupta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Prarthana Gupta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC: State Gratuity Authorities lack jurisdiction in multi-state establishments | SCC Times-State","description":"Delhi High Court holds that State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 when an establishment operates across multiple States.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction when establishment has branches in multiple States","og_description":"Delhi High Court holds that State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 when an establishment operates across multiple States.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-13T12:30:08+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-18T12:28:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prarthana Gupta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction when establishment has branches in multiple States","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prarthana Gupta","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/","name":"Del HC: State Gratuity Authorities lack jurisdiction in multi-state establishments | SCC Times-State","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-13T12:30:08+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-18T12:28:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382"},"description":"Delhi High Court holds that State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 when an establishment operates across multiple States.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"State Gratuity authorities lack jurisdiction for multi-state establishments-State establishments"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/del-hc-state-gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multistate-establishments-state\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities lack inherent jurisdiction when establishment has branches in multiple States"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ffe9a3c7eae30c883786fd440bcab382","name":"Prarthana Gupta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cd5380f62642d388922bf1a84a49cf7fe9acb150b43abdb5e1c20c15c40a94a9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Prarthana Gupta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/prarthana\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/State-Gratuity-authorities-lack-jurisdiction-for-multi-state-establishments-State-establishments.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":302541,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/27\/agreement-cannot-override-statutory-gratuity-payment-obligations-under-payment-of-gratuity-act-1972-cal-hc-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":375667,"position":0},"title":"Agreement\/Settlement cannot override statutory Gratuity payment obligations under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"September 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":197483,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/25\/section-46-of-payment-of-gratuity-act-does-not-contemplate-conviction-as-a-condition-precedent-for-forfeiting-gratuity\/","url_meta":{"origin":375667,"position":1},"title":"Section 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act does not contemplate conviction as a condition precedent for forfeiting gratuity","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.C. Gupte, J. dismissed a writ petition which was filed challenging the forfeiture of payment of gratuity due to the petitioner. The petitioner worked as a Branch Manager with the respondent Bank. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct alleging misappropriation of funds.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":375622,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/section-2e-of-payment-of-gratuity-act-not-apply-heavy-water-plant-employees-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":375667,"position":2},"title":"Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act doesn’t apply to Central Govt. employees holding Civil Posts: Supreme Court","author":"Ritu","date":"February 13, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe employees fall within the exclusionary clause of Section 2(e) of the PG Act. The result of such exclusion is that Sections 5 and 14 are not attracted in deciding on the applicability of the PG Act to the employees of HWP\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-2e-of-Payment-of-Gratuity-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-2e-of-Payment-of-Gratuity-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-2e-of-Payment-of-Gratuity-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-2e-of-Payment-of-Gratuity-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":346223,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/21\/employers-obligation-for-payment-of-gratuity-within-30-days-not-contingent-on-employees-written-application-post-exit-mp-hc-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":375667,"position":3},"title":"Employer\u2019s obligation to pay gratuity within 30 days not contingent on employee\u2019s written application post-exit: MP High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"April 21, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAmounts of retiral dues, including gratuity, are not bounties. It is deferred payment to the employee for the long services rendered by him to the Department... The retiral dues are also recognized as property under the Article 300-A of the Constitution.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madhya Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":303973,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/07\/employer-appeal-certificate-controlling-authority-payment-of-gratuity-act-cal-hc-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":375667,"position":4},"title":"Pre-Deposition Certificate by Controlling Authority under Section 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 enables employer to file appeal without actual deposit: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"October 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court acknowledged that LIC had indeed transferred the amount and issued a certificate to employer, enabling them to file the statutory appeal.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282956,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/02\/under-the-payment-of-gratuity-act-a-delay-cannot-be-condoned-by-taking-the-aid-of-the-provisions-of-the-limitation-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":375667,"position":5},"title":"Delay cannot be condoned under Payment of Gratuity Act by taking the aid of the provisions of Limitation Act: Kerala High Court","author":"Editor","date":"February 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court perused Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and held that the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot condone the delay in filing an appeal by entertaining an application under Limitation Act.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-310.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=375667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375667\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/375668"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=375667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=375667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=375667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}